judgesonmerit.org

It would be premature to say that the sun is peeking through the clouds.

Pennsylvania has had to weather a great deal of shame and uncertainty since the Orie sisters, who should have been stewards and defenders of the law, instead fell under its scrutiny. Pennsylvanians’ faith in their judiciary is understandably at a low ebb. But now that sentencing is complete for former Justice Joan Orie Melvin and her sister Janine Orie, we can stop worrying about what happened, and turn our more sober thoughts to what we’re actually going to do to ensure that it doesn’t have to happen again.

Joan Orie Melvin – now no longer entitled to the ‘Justice’ designation – will spend the next three years under house arrest, and the following two on probation. She will have to pay a fine of $55,000, and, perhaps most humbling, will have to handwrite personal apologies to every judge in the Commonwealth and to every member of her campaign staff and the campaign staff of her sister, incarcerated former state Senator Jane Orie. Photographs of the fallen justice will serve as stationary for these apologies.

The staff of former Senator Orie is included, of course, because much of this matter arose out of the collaborative misuse of state personnel and services by the Orie sisters to further Orie Melvin’s campaigns for a seat on the high court. It’s been argued in the past that this is how the game is played, that in politics, it’s never what you can do, it’s who you know. But it should be obvious – and now more than ever, as a hobbled Supreme Court has struggled and continues to struggle to compensate for Orie Melvin’s now permanent absence – that we can’t afford politics when it comes to our judges. They should not have to play a game of power and influence to get elected, and who they know should count for absolutely nothing against their fitness to sit on the bench and weigh the law.

Pennsylvania should have judges that are qualified, unbiased, and meritorious, in all ways that the word has meaning. We should have judges who know the law and apply it fairly, not through lenses handed to them by special interests. We should have judges who rise based on their understanding of legal issues, not on how quickly they can stack cash beneath their feet. And if anything, we deserve to have judges who sign photographs because they are heroes – not because they must apologize for being criminals.

Let’s help give Pennsylvania an opportunity to choose a better path. Let’s put Merit Selection on the table.

According to the Dallas Morning News, the trial begins today for a Texas woman accused of contributing to a judicial campaign in hopes of receiving a custody decision in her favor. Stacy Stine Cary faces felony charges of engaging in organized criminal activity, bribery and money laundering for her role in what prosecutors allege was a “complex scheme” to elect now-former-Judge Suzanne Wooten to the Texas bench in 2008.

Ms. Wooten was convicted in November 2011 on the same charges as well as additional charges of tampering with a government document. She was sentenced to 10 years probation, 1000 hours of community service and a $10,000 fine. Cary’s husband, David Cary and Wooten’s campaign manager, James Stephen Spencer also face charges.

This is a clear example of the dangers inherent in requiring judges to campaign for a seat on the bench. Clearly, but for judicial elections, this would not have happened. Judicial elections create the appearance that justice is for sale to the highest bidder and occasionally creates the perfect storm of corruption, as was allegedly the case for Ms. Cary and her cohorts. Merit selection takes judges out of the fundraising business and avoids the circumstances that can lead to problems like those now on trial in Texas.

An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer examines the efforts to implement a Merit Selection system in Pennsylvania.  The article highlights Justice Orie Melvin’s indictment for allegedly using her state funded staff and resources for her election campaigns and notes that this is not the first time that one of Pennsylvania’s state judges has been in trouble.

But beyond the scandals, Pennsylvania’s current judicial election system creates other big problems.  Discussing one of the biggest, former Dean of Temple University, Beasley School of Law, Professor Robert Reinstein stated,

To run, you have to be willing to raise enormous amounts of money. To think that you can have this system with all this money floating around without compromising judicial independence is equivalent to believing in the Easter Bunny.”

Why in the wake of such problems did the House Judiciary Committee decide 13-12 to table the Merit Selection bill? The article explains that trial lawyers, anti-abortion activists and others oppose Merit Selection.

A pivotal development occurred June 1, when the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, an anti-abortion group, informed members of the House Judiciary Committee that it opposed the measure and would weigh members’ votes when making endorsements in the next election.”

Committee chairman Ron Marsico (R., Dauphin) who initially “believed he had enough votes to release the bill from committee, said the e-mail swayed several committee members to vote to table the measure.”

This Bill would have given voters the opportunity to decide in a referendum whether to adopt a Merit Selection System for the appellate courts.  Lynn Marks, executive director at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts observed,

‘The part that is ironic is that it is the groups that say we need to elect judges who are saying don’t vote for this legislation.’ She added that those opponents are taking a very hard to defend position and are basically saying ‘we don’t want the people to have the right to change their constitution.’”

An editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer highlights the fact that special interest groups that oppose Merit Selection legislation have betrayed the voters whose rights they claim to protect:

[T]he trial lawyers, unions, gun-rights advocates, and abortion foes who continue to oppose reforms that would take appellate-court judges out of partisan elections achieved their victory by denying voters the very chance to air their views.

Changing to Merit Selection requires a constitutional amendment, a long process that culminates in a referendum, a vote of the people.  In other words, only the voters can change how we select appellate court judges.

Contrast that open and democratic proposal with what happened as special-interest groups lobbied lawmakers with the apparent view that elections are the surest way to pick jurists favorable to them.

Last week, the Merit Selection legislation was tabled in a narrow procedural vote in the House Judiciary Committee; the bill never received an up-down vote and did not get an opportunity to reach the whole House.

Voters should be furious with such legislative bullying, given that the statewide reform group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts says more than nine out of 10 state residents want the chance to vote on the issue. As PMC and other supporters of merit selection — including the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, and Philadelphia Bar Association — realize, judicial elections undermine public trust in the courts because candidates raise money from lawyers and other interest groups that may appear before them.

The editorial  concludes with disbelief that the voters are not being given the opportunity to decide this issue, despite a sitting Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice having been indicted for alleged violations of campaign laws:

How anyone could defend a system of picking judges that produces corruption of the type alleged against Melvin is a mystery. Even more troubling is the fact that powerful forces in the state don’t even want to let voters make up their own minds on this critical court reform.

We agree: it is time to let the voters decide.

A San Antonio Express-News article explains just how frequently lawyers contribute to judicial election campaigns.  Picture this: a group of probate attorneys gathering together in order to discuss the re-election of a probate judge while drinking scotch and beer.  The probate judge, Tom Rickhoff, stops by with a list of attorneys who could potentially contribute money to his re-election campaign.

Attorney Mark Stanton Smith was present at the re-election meeting, which led his opposing counsel in a guardianship case to request the recusal of Judge Rickhoff. Judge Rickhoff refused to recuse himself, leading to an appeal decided by Judge Peeples.

Smith explained that he and Judge Rickhoff were not close friends, but conceded that he had contributed money to Rickhoff’s re-election. “‘It’s a typical thing that I do to the judges that are in the courts.’” Smith admitted there had been similar meetings in 2010 and in 2006.  “The attorneys had agreed to call about 20 people each and solicit cash for the judge’s re-election.”

Judge David Peeples ruled that this was not unusual enough to require Judge Rickhoff to recuse.  However, he also noted the broader issue at stake. “‘If you are correct,’ Judge Peeples said, ‘potentially, wouldn’t (this affect) every judge in cases involving lawyers that help them significantly in their campaigns, more than just contributing money, contributing a big sum of money, work for them, send out letters, work the poll for a morning on election day, put out the yard signs, all these judges that got some of these lawyers in their court?’”

The column’s author, Brian Chasnoff, explained that this was not a denial of such contribution activity, rather it was an acknowledgement of the rampant contributions from attorneys to judges’ election campaigns. “It’s also another reason that Texas needs to find a new way to pick judges.”

PMC and PMCAction are disappointed to report that the House Judiciary Committee today tabled Merit Selection (H.B. 1815) on a 13-12 vote.  Instead of moving forward a bill that would give Pennsylvanians the opportunity to decide for themselves whether there is a better way to choose appellate judges, the Committee responded to pressure by special interest groups that would prefer not to let the people decide this issue.   Such groups clearly believe their best prospects lie in electing judges that agree with them and fear the results of a system that takes judges out of the campaign and fundraising businesses.

A 2010 pollof Pennsylvania voters revealed that 93% want the chance to vote on whether to adopt Merit Selection.  (A summary of the poll is available).  A positive vote in Committee would have moved us one step closer to letting the people vote.

It has been more than forty years since the public voted on this issue. Much has changed since then:  elections have become incredibly expensive, special interests (including some out-of-state organizations) are funding judicial campaigns, and a sitting Supreme Court justice has been indicted for alleged improper campaign activity.

It is past time for the people to be heard.  We will continue to work to bring this issue to the people so they can decide whether there is a better way.  We trust the voters to make this decision; it is unfortunate that others do not.

In an op-ed in the Harrisburg Patriot-News, PMC today calls for the state legislature to begin the process of giving the people of Pennsylvania the opportunity to decide whether there is a better way to select appellate court judges. The editorial notes the recent scandals that have rocked our state courts, including the indictment of a sitting Supreme Court justice for illegal campaign practices, and highlights the growing dissatisfaction with judicial elections:

A 2010 public opinion survey of Pennsylvania voters reflected deep distrust of the judicial election system: 76 percent believe that campaign contributions influence judges’ decisions; only 21 percent believe the most qualified candidates win judicial elections.

These staggering numbers reflect a lack of faith that elections produce qualified, fair and impartial judges. Research demonstrates widespread belief that “justice is for sale” to campaign contributors with deep pockets.

The editorial points out that:

It has been more than 40 years since the public had the chance to weigh in on how to choose our judges. In the 2010 statewide poll, 93 percent responded that Pennsylvanians should have the right to vote on this issue.

Pennsylvanians should not have to accept a system they believe is broken. It is time to give voters the opportunity to decide whether there is a better way to choose appellate court judges. Our legislators should give the public that opportunity. 

Today, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on H.B. 1815, which would amend the constitution to change from electing appellate judges to using a Merit Selection system.  A positive vote will send the bill to the House Floor. But this is only the first step in a lengthy process.  Amending the constitution takes much time and deliberation — two successive legislatures must pass identical legislation.  If that happens, the people must vote in a referendum to amend the constitution.  As PMC points out in the editorial, “our constitution can change only if the people of Pennsylvania vote to change it.”

We believe it is time for Pennsylvanians to have that opportunity.  We hope the legislature will give it to them.

According to the Philadelphia Daily News, the indictment and suspension of Justice Joan Orie Melvin “puts another big fat bow on the move to have judges appointed on merit rather than elected”.  Justice Orie Melvin was indicted last week on charges that she used her state-funded judicial staff on her 2003 and 2009 campaigns for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The charges cast a “dark shadow” over the Court and serve to decrease public confidence in the Pennsylvania judicial system.

The editorial points out that the Pennsylvania judicial system has weathered a number of scandals in the past few years that “have been testament to the dangers of subjecting judges to a partisan political process that requires lots of money to succeed.” Requiring judges to campaign for their seats creates the appearance of impropriety since they must solicit campaign contributions from individuals and organizations that often appear in front of them.

Additionally, as the grand jury presentment regarding Justice Orie Melvin demonstrates, campaigning is a full time job.  “The testimony in this latest grand jury report paints a disheartening picture of a judicial office, not as the sanctuary of justice, fairness and responsibility, but, rather, as a never-ending machine of raising money, campaigning and doing whatever is necessary to stay in office.” Merit Selection would allow judges to focus on their judicial and administrative duties rather than on the requirements of a campaign.

The time is ripe for Merit Selection. We agree with the Daily News that the House Judiciary Committee members should take whatever steps necessary to fast-track the pending legislation and give Pennsylvanians the right to choose whether we change the way we select judges.

An editorial in the Scranton Times Tribune argues that the indictment of Justice Joan Orie Melvin on charges of political corruption illustrates the need for merit selection in Pennsylvania. According to the editorial, “The charges go to the heart of the commonwealth’s folly in conducting elections for appellate court seats, rather than filling those seats through a merit-selection screening process and gubernatorial appointment with Senate confirmation.”

Justice Orie Melvin was indicted Friday on nine counts relating to her alleged use of state-funded staff and resources for her campaign for the state Supreme Court. Pursuant to a Supreme Court order, she has been suspended from all judicial and administrative duties. She will continue to receive pay and benefits.

The editorial argues that “[j]udges are supposed to be politically neutral but Pennsylvania’s system contradicts that goal. Judicial candidates solicit contributions from lawyers and narrow-interest groups with business before the courts. They seek the favor of political parties, which is the opposite of neutrality.”

This kind of politicking is detrimental to the Pennsylvania justice system. As PMC’s Executive Director Lynn Marks stated in a Patriot News article, “Judicial elections require candidates to campaign, participate in very partisan primary processes and fundraise, really blurring and eliminating the distinction between them and politicians. Asking them to go through this partisan process and then be nonpartisan starting after election day, it just doesn’t make sense.”

Hopefully, the House Judiciary Committee, which is scheduled to vote on Merit Selection next Tuesday, will use the Justice Orie Melvin saga as a cautionary tale against judicial elections and vote the Merit Selection bills out of committee.

As the state legislature prepares to vote on an amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution that would do away with partisan judicial elections, an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer expects that the indictment of state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin will serve as a pointed reminder of why such an amendment is necessary.

Melvin faces nine criminal counts alleging that she used her taxpayer-funded staff to do political campaign work while running for her state Supreme Court seat. Melvin has maintained her innocence and vowed to fight the charges. Nevertheless, this scandal has cast a dark cloud over the state’s highest court and has forced the other justices to take action to restore public confidence. Melvin was relieved of all court duties on Friday in an effort to respond to “a compelling and immediate need to protect and preserve the integrity” of the court.

The Melvin charges bring to light the unfortunate truth that judicial elections can turn judges into politicians that are sometimes “all too willing to break the rules to get elected.” It’s time that judges got out of politics and returned their focus to the fair and impartial administration of justice. “The Melvin case has become Exhibit No. 1 on the need to enact the judicial merit-selection legislation pending in Harrisburg.”