judgesonmerit.org

Following the May primary elections, Superior Court Judge Maureen Lally-Green announced her retirement and created a fourth vacancy to be filled during the fall general election.  The Republican and Democratic parties are poised to meet later this month to select candidates to join their existing slates.

The Legal Intelligencer (subscription required) reports that there are nine contenders, several of whom are sitting judges.  On the Republican side, Chester County Common Pleas President Judge Paula Ott, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Paul Panepinto, Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge Arthur Tilson, Monroe County Common Pleas Judge  Margherita Worthington, and Westmoreland County attorney Harry Smail, Jr. are seeking the nomination.  On the Democratic side, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judges James Murray Lynn, Paula Patrick and  M. Teresa Sarmina and Washington County President Judge Debbie O’Dell-Seneca are seeking the nomination.

Pennsylvania has a busy election season shaping up.  Voters will be filling one vacancy on the Supreme Court, four on the Superior Court and two on the Commonwealth Court.  Learn more about the upcoming elections on PMC’s current election page.

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) has joined the Justice at Stake Campaign and 19 other judicial reform groups across the country, in filing an amici curiae (“friends of the court”) brief with the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC case on September 9. The case focuses on campaign finance laws regulating corporate spending in elections.

The Citizens United case should be of particular concern to everyone worried that money is polluting the political process.  The Court is being asked to remove restrictions on campaign spending by corporate groups.  Such a decision “could trigger an election spending war in which companies, unions and other groups could tap directly into their treasuries.”

This would remove a major bulwark preventing runaway spending in judicial elections, a system already suffering from the corrupting influence of campaign cash. Said Justice at Stake’s executive director Bert Brandenburg: “The public needs to be confident that our courts are fair and impartial, and not swayed by election cash. No one wants justice to be for sale.”

As the brief argues:

“Special interest spending on judicial elections-by corporations, labor unions, and other groups-poses an unprecedented threat to public trust in the courts and to the rights of litigants. . . Unleashing corporate treasury funds on judicial elections . . .  will distract judges from their most important job: guaranteeing impartial justice to the litigants who come before them.”

PMC is proud to join the Justice at Stake Campaign and our other partners in opposing any steps that would increase the influence of money in the judicial selection process. Our judges need to be concerned with following the law, not the currents of election cashflow.

More information about Citizens United is available on Gavel Grab.

The West Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that Judge Michael Thornsbury is not required to recuse from the case involving Massey Coal Company.  According to the Associated Press (via Forbes.com), the high court found that “Conflict-of-interest allegations are not sufficient grounds for disqualification.”  However, the Supreme Court also ordered Judge Thornsbury to hold a hearing on the administration of the medical monitoring fund and what fees it can charge and to report back to the Supreme Court on that issue.

Not long ago we reported that there was another recusal petition involving a West Virginia judge in a case involving Massey Coal Company, the same company involved in Caperton v. Massey (the recusal case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court).  Judge Michael Thornsbury now has refused to recuse himself from the case.

According to the Charleston Gazette, “Thornsbury said allegations made against him by lawyers for local residents were “false and/or misleading” and that he should not have to step down from the lawsuit.”  The plaintiffs had alleged a friendship between the judge and Massey CEO George Blakenship, as well as the judge’s  appointment of a business partner as administrator over a medical monitoring program.

Also at issue was financial support for the judge’s campaign by one of Massey’s lawyers.  Regarding allegations about the defense attorney’s hosting of a fundraiser for the judge, the judge’s response to the recusal petition explained:

“The fact that both plaintiffs lawyers and defense lawyers sponsored the event shows the high esteem Judge Thornsbury is held by the entire bar,” wrote Jackson Kelly lawyer Daniel L. Stickler. “It was the shared belief of the sponsors of the event that Judge Thornsbury is a fair and impartial judge who never showed bias or prejudice towards any litigant appearing before him.”

It doesn’t matter that members of the plaintiffs and defense bar supported the judge’s campaign. The point is that someone felt uncomfortable having a judge presides over their case once they learned the other party was represented by one of the judge’s campaign supporters.  No one should ever have to worry that a judge’s decisions could be swayed by campaign contributions.

Judicial elections create an enviroment in which candidates need money to finance their campaigns.  The most likely sources of that money are lawyers, law firms and entities that frequently litigate in the state courts.  When judges later preside over cases involving lawyers or parties who financially supported their campaigns, it creates the perception that justice might be for sale. This undermines public trust and confidence in the courts and should not be permitted to continue. The solution is to get judges out of the fundraising business.