Nov 06 2009
Judicial Election has Prominent Pennsylvanians Asking Big Questions
Pete DeCoursey, bureau chief at the influential news source Capitolwire, has come to the realization that electing judges just doesn’t make sense. After covering judicial elections for over a decade, this election, with all its negative ads and astronomical costs finally tipped the scales (no pun intended).
In a groundbreaking article last Thursday, DeCoursey asked “Where is the public value in Supreme Court elections?” We highlighted some very compelling arguments from that piece here.
On Monday morning, DeCoursey joined Bonita Hoke, executive director of the League of Women Voters of PA on Harrisburg’s WITF Smart Talk. When asked what made him change his mind, DeCoursey responded that because judges are restricted from discussing issues in depth (legally or tactically, whichever), the idea of voters being able to make informed decisions seems to be a fiction.
Heading further west, J. Daniel Hull, a prominent blogger and a partner at the Pittsburgh law firm Hull McGuire was quoted in the Wall Street Journal Law Blog about his call for voters in states with judicial elections to stay home. Why would he make such a plea?
Hull explained that judges are different than other government officials, and argued they should not be elected:
The popular election of state judges . . . gives the appearance of justice being ‘for sale’ . . . . State systems of popularly-elected judiciary will never inspire much confidence. Elected jurists who hear and decide business disputes are steeped in a taint.”
The point: Judges should not have ‘constituents,’ i.e. law firms, and their clients, who make campaign contributions. Right now, in most American states, they do. And there is no way to” dress that up.
Hull’s frustration is palpable:
American states that still hang on to electoral systems look increasingly provincial, classless, and silly from a global perspective. Merit selection is not perfect–and also poses risks–but it is far better than what most American states currently have in place. It’s time for American states to grow up.”
We agree that it is very difficult – if not impossible – to design a perfect judicial selection system. And we know that it is not possible to take politics entirely out of the process of picking those who will serve on the bench. But it is possible to take money out of the judicial selection process and make qualifications the determining factor for who reaches the bench. This is what Merit Selection can accomplish.
Tags: Capitolwire, judicial selection, Merit Selection, Pete DeCoursey
Entries RSS
There needs to be a better system for selecting judges. Too many – look at Lebanon County – well-qualified candidates lose to lesser candidates for no reason except political affiliation. And some of the winners leave the appearance that they’ve bought the election with the help of unseemly campaign contributions.
Keep up the good fight, but extend the web to include Court of Common Pleas candidates.