judgesonmerit.org

Speaking to the Utah State Bar on Saturday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said it “could be a problem” to have judges selected through a political process.

But a “political process” is precisely what is in place for the state of Pennsylvania. Unlike the federal appointment system, or one of the various merit selection methods employed by other states, Pennsylvania chooses all of its judges in hotly contested partisan elections in which candidates are forced to raise money from potential litigants.

Justice Thomas is not the first Supreme Court justice to condemn the politicization of the judiciary. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor have both spoken out forcefully against the practice of judicial elections.

In March, Justice Ginsburg told a crowd at the National Association Meeting for Women Judges that given the opportunity, she would abolish judicial elections. “If there’s reform I would make, it would be that.”

Justice O’Connor has been outspoken as well, decrying the high price tag on judicial elections and the subsequent flow of political dollars into our state courts.

This is what she had to say about Pennsylvania:

Right now, Pennsylvanians are being shortchanged by the way their judges are chosen.  Judges running for election have to raise campaign contributions from individuals and organizations that appear before them in court.  In fact, the average cost to run for a state Supreme Court seat is staggering – reaching into the millions of dollars. 

Two things are true: (1) elections are inherently political and (2) judges are intended to operate outside of the political sphere. Yet we have judicial elections. This obvious and unfortunate mismatching exists to the detriment of Pennsylvania’s court users. It may not be possible to truly eradicate politics from any system. But merit selection provides a significant and undeniable step in that direction.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS