judgesonmerit.org

Prominent blogger Dan Cirucci made an astute observation in his coverage of the swearing in ceremony for Superior Court Judge Anne E. Lazarus:

In his remarks [Congressman and Democratic City Committee Chair] Bob Brady noted that Judge Lazarus sought the Superior Court seat in a previous election and lost. . . . But in explaining her initial loss Brady said that there were many factors involved in her loss “none of which had to do with her quality or ability.”

And that’s the point, Congressman Brady.

The election of judges is wrong precisely because the process has nothing to do with “quality or ability” and everything to do with political access, connections, deals, campaign contributions, special interests, geography, the sound of the candidate’s name and other factors that aren’t even remotely related to merit. It’s a disgrace.

How sad that good, dedicated, honest judges like Judge Lazarus have to go through this process and jump through these hoops to get onto the bench. How sad that they have to pa[y] homage to political bosses and assorted ward leaders and hangers-on.

It’s unseemly. And it’s the wrong way to pick judges.

Well said, Dan. And, so we don’t have to toot our own horn – he continues:

That’s why we support our friends at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) who have been fighting the good fight for merit selection. Get involved with PMC and join them in the battle for great judges and a first rate judicial system

In a letter to the Philadelphia Daily News today, bar association chancellor Scott F. Cooper emphasized the importance of changing the way we select appellate court judges. Writing in support of last week’s editorial on Merit Selection, Chancellor Cooper emphasized the unavoidable problem of money in judicial elections:

The judicial system in Pennsylvania operates in spite of the elections that require candidates to collect millions in campaign contributions. Justice simply can’t be served when citizens question the ability of judges to be impartial when their donors appear before them. In a country based on rule of law, the courts must not only be immune to financial influences, the public must see them that way.

Cooper noted that Merit Selection carries the endorsement of the Bar Association, as well as that of Governor Rendell and numerous watchdog groups, including PMC. Public support is crucial to enacting reform. A switch to Merit Selection will require a public vote to amend the state constitution. Cooper argued that citizens should have the opportunity to speak out on the matter:

Pennsylvanians deserve the chance to lend their voice to this important debate. They should be allowed to decide on this constitutional change. And the time for that is now.

Well put Chancellor Cooper.

WDUQ, Pittsburgh’s flagship NPR station, aired this piece earlier this week about the growing support for the Merit Selection of judges in Pennsylvania. The station cited PMC’s support of the current legislation before the state House of Representatives and quoted PMC Chairman Robert C. Heim decrying the problem with mixing money and judicial selection. Regarding the $3 million-plus raised by the 2 Supreme Court candidates in this past election (and the $4.5 million spent, including over $1 million spent by the Republican Party on television ads for victorious candidate Judge Joan Orie Melvin), Heim said:

“Most of it came from lawyers. Lawyers who are going to have their matters entertained and judged by the people to whom they were contributing money.”

The only truly effective way of taking money out of the equation is to stop treating judges like politicians, and implement a judicial selection process, like Merit Selection, in which there is no campaigning.

A newspaper in Fort-Worth, Texas published an editorial this past Friday challenging Texans to reconsider the way they select judges. Noting that Texas has the dubious distinction of being “among a handful of states that elect all their judges in partisan elections” (along with Pennsylvania, Alabama, West Virginia, Illinois, and Louisiana), the paper calls on its citizens to “use this next year to examine and debate a new judicial selection system that the state legislature can adopt when it meets in 2011.”

The editorial noted that in some states “where judicial elections have devolved into money-driven battles of ugly TV ads,” including Pennsylvania, “sentiment for change is building.” The perception of the role of money in elections is a primary reason for a change to Merit Selection. After citing the $4.5 million spent on the recent Supreme Court race in PA as reported by PMC, the paper noted:

The biggest problem is that judges and candidates for the bench must raise campaign money primarily from lawyers, groups and individuals who might have cases before those same courts. In statewide races, the sums can be enormous. It leaves the public wondering whether money is buying influence.

Referencing other problems with electing judges, the Star-Telegram asked rhetorically:

Who doesn’t want fairness, impartiality and justice when they go into court?

Who doesn’t want qualified, capable, independent judges deciding disputes?

Who honestly believes that the only way to achieve that is to elect judges through expensive campaigns that do more to undermine public confidence than to provide voter education about the judiciary?

Good questions. The first step in the process was set in motion at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee’s Sub-Committee on Courts late last year.  If the state houses pass the legislation currently before committee in two consecutive sessions, the voters will have the ultimate say whether to amend the state constitution to make this important change to the way we select judges.

An editorial in today’s Philadelphia Daily News urges that Merit Selection is a much needed reform.  Discussing the very expensive 2009 Supreme Court elections and the Luzerne County Courthouse scandal,  the Daily News writes:

Welcome to the darker side of the Pennsylvania judiciary, a side that will continue to stay dark as long as we elect judges. . . .

The editorial discusses the danger of fundraising in judicial campaigns, the too important role of the political parties in determining who reaches the bench, and the lack of relevant information for voters trying to decide who should be a judge.

The editorial closes with a shout-out to PMC:

The need for reform is clear. The advocacy group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts has been a steady voice calling for merit selection through a constitutional amendment.

The Philadelphia Inquirer today called for judicial selection reform, arguing that “The case for reforming the way Pennsylvania selects its judges keeps getting stronger.”  Citing PMC’s analysis of the fundraising and spending in the 2009 Supreme Court election, the editorial focuses on the poisonous role of money in judicial elections:

It’s the troubling influence of campaign fund-raising that continues to create the most concern about electing judges in head-to-head partisan contests.

Most Pennsylvanians say they suspect that justice is for sale because candidates for judgeships have to raise campaign funds. The big-spending 2009 Supreme Court election between Republican Joan Orie Melvin and Democrat Jack Panella did nothing to restore their fraying faith in an impartial judiciary.

The Inquirer urges action, and we hope the call is heeded:

The course for state policymakers is clear: Step in and reform judicial selection, or continue to preside over a system that erodes public confidence in justice as it’s dispensed in Pennsylvania.