judgesonmerit.org

PMC has been speaking out on the topic of gifts to judges. In a letter to the editor appearing on the New York Times website, PMC’s executive and deputy directors criticized the court rule allowing the acceptance of gifts with disclosure. The letter came in response to an editorial entitled “Untenable Judicial Ethics,” and both the editorial and the letter to the editor call for a change in the court rules. Prohibiting gifts could help restore public confidence in the courts: “People must believe that they get a fair shake when they stand before a judge. Nothing should be permitted that undermines that belief.”

An article in the Des Moines Register announces that Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins still believes that Merit Selection is best way to pick judges. Refusing to “second guess” the recent election in which three Iowa Supreme Court justices were ousted, Wiggins declared that it was time for the court to move on.

Speaking as a panelist at an event sponsored by the Iowa chapter of the American Constitution Society, Wiggins expressed confidence in the selection committee’s role in creating fair and impartial courts. He stated that he believes they provide the governor with a list of the most qualified candidates. Ben Stone, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and another panelist, emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary:

There can be no civil liberties – there can be no individual freedom – in a country that does not have an independent judiciary. And in a state that doesn’t have an independent judiciary, all of the rights that are at stake in the state courts are up for grabs.

We agree that fair and impartial courts are necessary, and that Merit Selection is the best way to achieve such courts. Retention elections are an important component to the Merit Selection system, but there is a problem when retention elections are used to target judges on single issues. As PMC recently stated in an editorial in the Legal Intelligencer, retention elections should be an opportunity for the public to evaluate the whole of a judge’s tenure. Formal evaluations of judicial performance and ongoing public education about the role of the courts and judges are tools that should be used to ensure that the public understands the role of retention elections. Retention elections give the public the responsibility of maintaining fair and impartial courts, and public education is key to making this system work.

The following is a guest post from Sekou Campbell, an associate at Fox Rothschild LLP in Philadelphia.

The O’Jays craftily described the power of money in their classic “For the Love of Money,” where they swoon, “money will make you…do things, do things, bad things for it.” In the aftermath of the Luzerne County scandal, Pennsylvanians have a unique understanding of how cash can make society’s most relied upon decision-makers do “bad things.” Of course, the vast majority of judges have integrity and comport themselves with ethical principles. Yet, few can dispute the power money has to taint the perceptions of both the judiciary and the body politic.

Recently, a cacophony of reports and editorials from the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the Harrisburg Patriot-News, and the New York Times have profoundly questioned Pennsylvania Supreme Court policy regarding gifts: if judges may accept gifts from lawyers who appear before them so long as they disclose them. Hopefully, the Court notices and acts upon the near uniform condemnation of this policy.

Presents cast a specter of bias on even the most virtuous and fair judge. The judiciary should, at least, consider ways to mitigate this perception deficit. For instance, just as corporate boards form special litigation committees of disinterested directors when making decisions regarding derivative suits, so could the judiciary form a similar committee for recusals. Otherwise, the judiciary could adopt the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct 2.11 which requires the disqualification of judges who have received contributions from lawyers appearing before them. Of course, the judiciary would have to engage in discourse with itself and the public regarding its recusal rules. However, requiring mere disclosure, without more, undermines the legitimacy of the venerable Pennsylvania bench.