judgesonmerit.org

Lynn Marks, PMC’s executive director, joined the moderator of Pennsylvania Newsmakers, Terry Madonna, on Sunday to discuss Merit Selection and the need for judicial selection reform in Pa.

Marks outlined some of the problems inherent in judicial elections:

Just think of yourself in court and then you start wondering, ‘Gee I wonder if Terry made a large contribution to one of those judges. And then I think, ‘I wonder if Terry’s lawyer made contribution, and then I think, ‘Gee I hope my lawyer made a huge contribution.’ I shouldn’t even be thinking that when I’m in a court of justice.

Merit Selection takes judges out of the fundrais

ing business.  Judicial campaigns would not have to raise money from lawyers, law firms and organizations that later could appear before them in court.

Currently, this overlap between contributors to judicial campaigns and frequent participants in court is a major cause of concern for the public.  It creates the perception that judges are beholden to special interests, which undermines the integrity of the courts.

Under Merit Selection, this fundraising cycle would be broken, and people would not have to question whether a judge might be influenced by a campaign contributor or supporter.  As Marks explained,

“That’s all we’re asking for, is for. . . [litigants] to feel like they’re getting a fair shake in court.”

PMC’s Lynn Marks appears on this week’s Newsmakers with Terry Madonna to discuss Merit Selection of appellate court judges. The show follows PMC’s recent release of a public opinion poll demonstrating widespread support for Merit Selection and an overwhelming desire to have the issue put to a public referendum.

Here is a list of channels airing the show:

This is a big judicial election year for Ohio, and trouble is brewing already. Like Pennsylvania, Ohio limits the political and fundraising activities of judicial candidates.  But the Columbus Dispatch reports that the candidates for  Chief Justice are trading allegations of unethical campaign conduct.

The Republican Party alleges that Chief Justice Eric Brown improperly solicited campaign contributions.  The Democratic Party alleges that Brown’s challenger Justice Maureen O’Connor, improperly endorsed another judicial candi

date.  The Democratic Party also alleges that another sitting Justice, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, a Republican up for re-election, also violated the rule against endorsing other candidates.

Aren’t we getting tired of these stories?  These allegations, coupled with expensive elections funded by lawyers, law firms and organizations that frequently litigate in the state courts, makes one wonder why states continue to elect judges.  It seems that money problems and political entanglements are the  inevitable partners of judicial elections.

We need a system that gets judges out of the fundraising business and limits partisan political activity.  Merit Selection is such a system.

“Exactly what are we waiting for?” the Reading Eagle asks of a switch from elections of appellate judges to merit selection in Pennsylvania.

The recent opinion piece champions the many reasons why merit selection makes sense:

Last year’s appellate court elections provided all the evidence anyone should need to realize that merit selection would be a far better way to pick jurists for the three highest courts in Pennsylvania.

The newspaper, which has been an advocate of merit selection for years, points out the uniqueness of having support from both sides of the aisle, including the last four governors of Pennsylvania – three Republicans and a Democrat:

There seems to be few proposals these days to gain true bipartisan support, so when one is put forth, i

generic cialis online

t deserves serious consideration.

The piece also points out the soaring costs of judicial elections, calling the $4.7 million spent by the two candidates in the last Supreme Court race “a ridiculous amount of money for candidates who are prevented by judicial canons from actually conducting a campaign in any true sense of the word.”

The Superior Court and Commonwealth Court elections are also costly, and, despite the million raised, “gave voters little on which to base their selection other than part, home county and perhaps a campaign slogan or two.”

The article also quotes some figures from a recent Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts poll that 93 percent of people favored putting the issue of merit selection on a statewide ballot.

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves:

“Exactly what are we waiting for?”

Two Minnesota Republicans have formed a new political action committee called “Justice in Minnesota” aimed at getting a slate of conservative Christians elected to the state bench, Gavel Grab reported.

The PAC’s mission is “to elect Constitutionally Conservative Judges who will interpret the law and remember the separation of powers in every court decision by applying only the law and the evidence to decisions from the bench.”

One of the judicial candidates, Tim Tingelstad, calls for the Minnesota courts to return to the principles of the Christian Bible:

As God’s Word has been removed from our public lives, the resulting darkness has led to our present social disorder and political divisions. The correction of these problems will only begin when the Light of Truth is returned to our land’s highest hills, the Supreme Courts. Until our highest courts return to an acknowledgment of the existence of God and His Truth, the people will contin

college essay help

ue to walk in the confusion of darkness.

Another candidate supported by Justice in Minnesota, Dan Griffith, echoes similar sentiments on his campaign website:

I believe in God. I think every judge should. I believe that God is real and that ultimately we will be accountable to him when we die and that should affect how we treat others on earth. That may be why John Jay, our First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said ‘We should elect of all people Christians.’

Judges should be elected based on their qualifications and impartiality, not on their political beliefs, be they conservative or liberal. Campaigns such as this divert attention from what should be the focus of judges – justice – and instead create the appearance that candidates are pandering to ideologies and constituency groups.

Read the full article in The Minnesota Independent here.

An editorial in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette calls for State Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to allow a vote on a bill that would move Pennsylvania one step closer to choosing appellate judges on merit rather than through elections.

The editorial poses a straightforward question with a seemingly simple answer:

What possible harm could there be to letting lawmakers vote for something that must be endorsed or rejected by the public?

Answering their own question, the paper continues:

To the long list of what is wrong with the General Assembly, Pennsylvanians can add this: The power of committee chairmen turned into sultans by seniority deciding whether bills before them live or die.

As one of only six states that elect judges at all level of state judiciary, the bill would create a 14-member paneled comprised of members from the public and others selected by the governor and the General Asse