Jul 15 2009
Making the Case for Merit Selection
In a guest column for the Times-Tribune in Scranton, PMC Board Chair Bob Heim makes the case for Merit Selection. Heim begins with a discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton and then offers this insight about the problematic role of money in judicial elections:
There’s no question that, , if one side of a case contributed to a judge’s campaign, the other side will worry. . . .
The presence of money in judicial elections may not violate the Constitution. But it violates our citizenry’s trust in the impartiality of those who sit in judgment.
Heim continues: “There is a simple solution: Get judges out of the fund-raising business by changing the way we choose them.” He points out that in addition to solving the money problem, Merit Selection focuses on the qualifications of the candidates and ensures that judicial selection would on longer be based on the irrelevant factors that so often have a big influence in judicial elections, like ballot position, county of residence, and fundraising prowess.
Heim concludes by noting that the legislature needs to understand that judicial selection is an important issue to the people of Pennsylvania. He urges: “Let your legislators know you care.”
Tags: Bob Heim, Caperton, judicial elections, Merit Selection, PMC, Scranton, Times-Tribune
Entries RSS
[...] judgesonmerit.org » Making the Case for Merit Selection [...]
Ms. Marks, there is no reason to expect that merit selection of judges holds any hope of improving the functioning and professionalism of court administration and conduct as long as the disciplinary and oversight system that governs the conduct of some 60,000 PA attorneys is so weak, ineffective, unprofessional and unverifiable as it currently exists. Coming from law enforcement where public officials and attorneys were able to scrutinize and evaluate the minutest of decisions made by police in some of the most difficult of moments, I find that most of the time that PA attorneys are subject to any significant, negative consequential discipline results from conduct, criminal and otherwise, that they themselves engage in and there is little for the disicplinary board and system to do and investigate, and suspension and disbarrment is a simple matter of administrative action.
Forgetting about what profession we are dealing with, Ms. Marks, we are all human and as human behavior would have it, each of us will continue with conduct, right, wrong, ethical or unethical, as long as there is no significant oversight, review and scrutiny from outside sources. As a matter of fact, as humans, we become emboldened by our behavior when no one tells us to stop or there are negative reasons for us to curtail our unprofessional conduct (ask Vince Fumo). One only need look at the Luzerne County debacle and now the Judge Berry fiasco…….where is the oversight, the long-term proactive response to such egregious, unethical and despicable behavior and conduct? Interestingly, when I asked Paul Burgoyne a couple of years ago how many PA attorneys has the Disciplinary Board taken action against for frivolous lawsuits, he provided ONE name. One out of 60,000???