judgesonmerit.org

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction will hold a press conference in Harrisburg at 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday June 9 to release the results of a statewide poll that indicate Pennsylvanians’ strong support for Merit Selection of appellate court judges (the judges on the statewide Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth courts).

The poll found, among other things, that 62 percent of respondents favor replacing the current system with Merit Selection.  Read the Media Advisory here.

The press conference will feature Governor Ed Rendell, a written statement from retired United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Senator Jane Earll, sponsor of SB 860, Representative Matt Smith, sponsor of HB 1621, former Governor Tom Ridge via telephone, former Governor Mark Schweiker,  Lynn Marks, executive director of PMC & PMCAction, and representatives of coalition partners including Justice At Stake and the Committee for Economic Development.

Pennsylvania isn’t the only state that’s realizing the need for merit based selection of appellate judges rather than partisan races fueled by special interest money.

A Minnesota bill on the same issue went further than ever before in the state legislature but ultimately came up short a few weeks before the end of the session.

The bill would have placed a question on a fall ballot asking voters whether to amend the state constitution to make the switch to merit selection.

Under the Minnesota proposal, the governor would appoint judges to fill open seats, and voters would decide whether or not to retain the judge. An independent judicial-performance evaluation commission would also be created to evaluate judges’ performances.

Despite the outcome, Minnesota proponents of merit selection pledge to continue working for reform.

Nevada is even closer to selecting judges on merit. In November Nevada voters will decide the issue after the state legislature approved the proposal’s wording last month.

Both of these states are on the right track. Fair trials require impartial judges, which is why merit selection, not partisan elections will result in a more diverse and qualified judiciary. With the rising costs of judicial elections and the potential large donors may appear in front of those same judges in court the time to change to switch to merit selection is now.

Backed by gun enthusiasts, abortion opponents and pastors, a group of conservative California attorneys are on a “mission from God” to unseat four San Diego Superior Court justices, the Associated Press reported today.

The attorneys are pledging to be God’s ambassadors from the bench to combat the fact that “our country is under assault and needs Christian values,” according to Craig Candelore, one of the candidates.

At a recent campaign event standing in front of a wall adorned with the words “Live Jesus,” candidate Harold J. Colemen Jr. argued that voters should know a judge’s values.

The movement highlights the many reasons why merit selection ensures a far more fair and impartial way to select judges than does partisan elections. Even judicial candidates that do not campaign on such ideological grounds require big bucks and massive contributions in order to be elected. The same parties that contribute to the campaigns may later appear before the judges in court, creating an obvious conflict of interest.

San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said:

”Any organization that wants judges to subscribe to a certain political party or certain value system or certain way of ruling to me threatens the independence of the judiciary. Judges should be evaluated based on their qualifications and their duty to follow the law.”

The challenge comes while many states, including Pennsylvania, are questioning whether continuing to elect judges makes sense.

Adam Skaggs, counsel for the Brennan Center, said:

An effective way in driving policy is to try to influence who is on the courts in a state, particularly the highest court, the supreme court. It’s cause for concern because Americans expect courts to be places where people get a fair trial.

Fair trials require impartial judges, which is why merit selection, not partisan elections will result in a more diverse and qualified judiciary.

A forthcoming law review article by James Sample of Hofstra Law School describes how last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. Massey has sparked a wave of judicial reform across the county.

Caperton involved a West Virginia Supreme Court justice who refused to step down from ruling on a case despite the fact that one of the litigants had spent $3 million to help that justice get re-elected. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that that given the “serious risk of actual bias,” the justice was constitutionally required to step down. The Court went further in holding that the mere appearance of impropriety may be enough to command recusal in certain situations.

Numerous states have been working with new-found ardor to get the influence of money out of their courtrooms. The best way to achieve this is to eliminate the need for judges to raise money at all by abolishing state judicial elections. Sample writes in “Court Reform Enters the Post-Caperton Era,”

…Caperton is rejuvenating efforts in some states to at least reconsider whether, given the spiraling costs of judicial elections and the commensurate conflicts created by expensive campaigns, carefully crafted appointive systems might better serve the public.

One such appointive system—Merit Selection—is currently being considered in the Pennsylvania legislature. Given the rising costs of judicial elections in Pennsylvania, the risk of creating a Caperton-like situation is all but inevitable. Pennsylvania should be afforded the opportunity to decide whether to do away with judicial elections at the appellate level.