judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer reviews the finding of the New Politics of Judicial Elections 2009-2010 and concludes that it is time for Pennsylvania to change to Merit Selection.  Reviewing the very expensive 2009 Pennsylvania Supreme Court race and looking at the biggest sources of the campaign funding, the editorial notes, “Seeing that cascade of cash, more voters have reason to subscribe to the well-documented public perception that justice is for sale.”

The editorial cites polling data from Pennsylvanian and nationwide that demonstrates wide-spread public belief that campaign contributions affect judicial decision-making.  “That perception threatens to erode confidence in the state courts as places where every litigant can get a fair shake. ”

The recommended solution is Merit Selection:

With merit selection legislation pending in both the state House and Senate, and the support of five current and former governors, it’s time for Pennsylvania leaders to push forward. . . .[T]he facts on the impact of uncontrolled campaign funding, as well as majority public sentiment, are solidly behind making the switch to an appointed appellate judiciary.

We agree: it is time for Pennsylvanians to get the chance to weigh in on whether we are using the best system to choose our appellate court judges.  We hope they will get the opportunity.

An editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette decries the growing problem of money in judicial elections that was reported in The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2009-2010:

Lady Justice is often depicted blindfolded to signify that outside influence does not tip the scales she holds to weigh the truth. Unfortunately, the scales are being tipped by special interests that pour money into judicial elections to get a desired result.

Too often it is the voters themselves who are blind to what is going on, yet this is a national problem and Pennsylvania is affected worse than most.

The editorial discusses the money raised in the 2009 Pennsylvania Supreme Court race between Justice Joan Orie Melvin and Judge Jack Panella, and notes that plaintiffs’ trial lawyers and the state Republican party provided much of the money that funded those campaigns.

The editorial then urges that the solution to the money problem is Merit Selection: “In a merit selection system of the sort proposed but not adopted in Pennsylvania, the corrupting influence of money would not be an issue.”  That’s true, because Merit Selection gets judges out of the fundraising business and stops the flow of money to judicial candidates from people and organizations that later appear before the judges they helped elect.

Merit Selection legislation is pending in the House and Senate.  Passage would set the stage for Pennsylvanians to have the opportunity to decide whether we should find a better way to select appellate court judges.  Without reform, we are left with the alternative described in the closing words of the editorial: a Pennsylvania where “politicians and public alike wear self-imposed blindfolds and pretend only to hear banging gavels, not cash hitting the scales of justice.”