judgesonmerit.org

Opponents of Merit Selection of appellate judges often argue that the hybrid appointment system – in which a nominating commission recommends a slate of candidates for open seats on the bench – lacks transparency. Merit Selection, critics claim, can never be as open and transparent as choosing judges by popular election. But we’re assuming that partisan election of judges is an open process, accessible to the public. How true is that assertion?

An article in Monday’s West Chester Daily Local News points out the reality; partisan election of judges isn’t the model of public access that it’s touted to be. Before judicial candidates can get on the ballot, they have to worry about securing the nomination of their preferred party. For instance, take the candidates competing for the endorsement of the Chester County Republican Committee.

A nod from the committee is seen as almost certain assurance that the candidate will win the party’s nomination in the primary election, while failing to capture it spells the exact opposite.

Each of the candidates has already begun peppering the committee members with letters and telephone calls touting their own experience and qualifications for filling the judicial seats that were vacated by the retirements of Judge Thomas G. Gavin and Judge Ronald Nagle, both of whom have taken the role of senior judge on the court.

In order to get on the primary ballot as the party’s endorsed candidate, judicial candidates have to win a thumbs-up from a handful of political committee members, who are under no legal obligation to disclose their deliberations to the public.  As we pointed out in Tuesday’s post, to get the endorsement of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee requires a sizable political  contribution.

And the problem is only magnified for candidates at the appellate court level. Candidates for the Superior, Commonwealth and Supreme Court in Pennsylvania need the endorsement of a statewide political party to have any real hope of getting elected. Without those endorsements, judicial candidates are effectively locked out of the judicial selection process, regardless of their experience or ability.

By contrast, Merit Selection shifts the focus from a judicial candidate’s political savy, party connections, and fundraising prowess back to the aspiring jurist’s qualifications for the bench.  The best Merit Selection systems are specifically designed to ensure that the nominating process is open to the public. All of which makes Merit Selection a better way to choose appellate judges in Pennsylvania.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS