judgesonmerit.org

This pro merit selection editorial from last Friday’s Herald-Standard was brought to our attention by Representative Matt Smith, D-Mt. Lebanon. The paper endorses proposed legislation that would change the way Pennsylvanians select appellate judges from judicial elections to a merit selection process. Smith is sponsoring a bill in the House and there is similar legislation proposed by Senator Jane Earll, R-Erie, pending in the Senate.

The editorial details two of the (many) major problems with electing judges.

One, there is very little meaningful information available about the judicial candidates.

In fact, with so little to base their decision on, many voters just pick the candidate for judge who comes from their region of the state. The story is always the same with statewide judge races: barely anyone from the Philadelphia area will vote for a Pittsburgh area judge and vice versa. Too often, the only thing voters know about statewide candidates for judge is where they are from. In those cases, geography rules. Frankly, that’s not a smart way to select judges, who can have such a profound impact on our lives.

Two, in order to win, judicial candidates are forced to act like politicians, endlessly raising money and wooing potential campaign contributors. In the eyes of the public, the campaigns of judges and other elected officials become indistinguishable.

However, unlike other races, judges are supposed to be impartial arbiters of justice. To continue with a system that forces them into the political muck is irresponsible at best. It doesn’t take much imagination to foresee judges who are beholden to the political leaders and power brokers who helped them win elections.

Pennsylvania deserves better. The Governor has publicly expressed his support of merit selection for the appellate bench. Now is the time for the state legislature to move on this crucial reform issue. Says the Herald-Standard, “There’s plenty of room on left on this bandwagon.”

Paul Carpenter of the Allentown Morning Call devoted his weekend column to a call for Merit Selection.  He reasons that the role of money in the judicial election process poisons the judicial system:

The problem should be obvious to anyone. A child in grade school can see why there’s a conflict if a judge in a position to rule on a legal dispute takes money from somebody with a vital financial interest in that case.

Carpenter spoke with PMC’s Lynn Marks:

”Pennsylvanians should not take pride in leading the nation in spending for judicial elections,” Marks told me. ”Each dollar raised and spent raises yet another doubt in voters’ minds about whether or not justice is for sale.”

Carpenter agreed, arguing “How is it possible for a judicial candidate with a shred of integrity to accept. . . money . . .  [from]  lawyers, law firms and lobbyists with ties to law firms having business before the Supreme Court.”

Unfortunately, under our current system of electing judges, these contributions are legal.  And, the judges are not required to recuse from cases involving campaign contributors.  This all leads the public to be concerned about the influence of money on judicial decisions.

Carpenter argues that the money problem causes a “stench” in our courts.  He urges reform:

That stench can be ended only one way — the merit selection of appellate judges, instead of letting their elections depend on millions of dollars in ”contributions” from lawyers and others with a stake in how these courts rule.

We hope the legislature will begin the process that will let Pennsylvanians decide how to address the problems caused by money in judicial elections.