judgesonmerit.org

After admitting initial skepticism, the Herald Standard has come out in support of House Bill 1619, which would put an end to judicial elections at the appellate level by instituting a system of Merit Selection.

On Friday the Uniontown paper had this to say about this to say about Pennsylvanian’s present politicized system of electing judges:

Once into politics, it’s not hard to imagine that in some way these judges are invariably influenced by the political interests that got them there.

With the current system there’s nothing ensuring the judges that get elected are competent or qualified since the only qualification is the ability to be good at politics.”

Running in contested partisan elections, judicial candidates are forced to campaign and fundraise in order to get their names known to the public. Yet aside from a name, little relevant information is readily available for voters to make an informed decision. Much of the funding supporting judicial candidates comes from lawyers, law firms, businesses, unions, political parties, special interest groups, and third parties that could potentially come before the elected judges as litigants. While judges may claim impartiality, the public perceives such a practice as “justice for sale.”

The proposed legislation would institute a nominating commission that would submit the names of the most qualified candidates to the governor. After nomination by the governor and confirmation by the Senate, a judge would serve an initial term of four years. Then the public would decide in a retention election whether the judge should remain on the bench.

The Standard notes that while there may be some very competent and fair judges on the bench, elections do not guarantee us this result.

Isn’t it time we improve such a process?”

Trackback URI | Comments RSS