judgesonmerit.org

Former Hawaiian Governor Linda Lingle declared her support for merit selection and former Pennsylvania Governors Edward G. Rendell, Thomas J. Ridge, Dick Thornburgh, and George Leader in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.

Governor Lingle writes in response to the Journal’s editorial “Judges, Politics, and George Soros,” which criticized merit selection and efforts in Pennsylvania to establish it, and the four former Pennsylvania Governors’ response, which we covered here.

Hawaii uses merit selection to appoint judges. In her letter, Governor Lingle registers her disagreement with the WSJ’s argument:

“The Journal is right in saying that ‘No method of judicial selection is perfect,’ but it errs by setting up a false choice between ‘the rough and tumble of electoral accountability’ or ‘leaving the choices to a lawyer’s guild that is accountable to no one but themselves’ as the only possible methods of choosing state judges.”

Governor Lingle, a Republican, also uses her own experience appointing judges through the merit selection system while in office to reject the WSJ’s argument that merit selection sends state courts to the political left.

Thank you, Governor Lingle, for offering your opinion and publicly supporting our own former Governors at this critical point in Pennsylvania’s move towards merit selection. Your voice helps reinforce that merit selection is not about partisan politics – it’s about getting the best judges on the bench. Hopefully Pennsylvania will soon be able to join Hawaii and the majority of the United States in making that vision real.

Yesterday, I had the fortune of hearing three ex-governors of Pennsylvania get together on a single phone call with the media to discuss merit selection in Pennsylvania. These are three people from across the political spectrum who sometimes have difficulty agreeing upon which end of a dog barks; but on the subject of how we might improve our system of choosing judges, they spoke passionately and with a united perspective.

They – former Governors Edward Rendell, Dick Thornburgh, Thomas Ridge – spent a half hour answering questions and giving their opinions on the current Merit Selection bills in the Pennsylvania Assembly, why our state would benefit from Merit Selection, and how their own time in office only reinforced that perspective. This event followed a letter to legislators and Governor Corbett exhorting them to action on merit selection, signed by these three former governors and a fourth, former Governor George Leader.

The union of these former leaders of Pennsylvania show that how are judges are selected is not an issue defined by party lines or political ties – indeed, the eradication of political allegiance from the judicial selection process is one of benefits that proponents of Merit Selection hope will manifest. Governor Ridge emphasized that the ideal judiciary is supposed to be independent of political machinery. It is the branch of government that is given direction not by the changing flavor of public opinion, but

by the structures of law already established.

These four governors have all had first hand experience with how electioneering and campaigning casts a shadow over that independence, even when they themselves were forced to be participants of that system. They said they knew while in office that there was a better way to ensure the quality of Pennsylvania’s judiciary; and even now, long after they have all vacated the Pennsylvania’s Governor’s Mansion, they are working to give Pennsylvanians the opportunity to choose for themselves whether they agree.

South Dakota and Indiana may change the composition of their Merit Selection commissions in coming days,

if legislation introduced in both states continues to move forward.

Currently, Indiana’s nominating commission comprised of the Chief Justice, 3 nonattorneys (one from each Court of Appeals district) picked by the governor, and 3 attorneys elected by the attorneys of the state. The introduced bill would restrict the governor’s picks to selections from a list compiled by the four legislative leaders (House speaker, House minority leader, President pro tempore of the the Senate, and Senate minority leader).

In South Dakota , the Judicial Qualifications Commission would be altered so that the state bar would appoint only one person, instead of its current three. These would be replaced by two members appointed by the legislature, with one person selected by the House Speaker, and one person selected by the Senate President pro tempore.

We’re interested to see how these efforts develop in Indiana and South Dakota, and are glad to see legislators taking an interest in how their judges are selected. We hope that legislators here in Pennsylvania will take a cue from their colleagues, and make judicial selection reform a priority.

National Merit Selection Coalition partner Justice at Stake issued the following press release today:

Judicial Election TV Spending Sets New Record,

Yet Voters Reject Campaigns to Politicize the Judiciary

Contact:
Seth Hoy, Brennan Center for Justice, seth.hoy@nyu.edu, (646) 292-8369
Eeva Moore, Justice at Stake, emoore@justiceatstake.org, (202) 588-9462

For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 7, 2012 — Americans overwhelmingly rejected big-money attempts to hijack their courts on Election Day. The 2012 campaign saw record spending in state Supreme Court races, with Super PACs and other outside groups spending millions on TV ads and mailers seeking to influence judicial races. At the same time, voters rebuffed a series of costly campaigns seeking to make courts accountable to partisans and special interests, ignoring calls to unseat judges over their decisions, and rejecting referenda in three states designed to give politicians more power over the courts.

This year’s court-related campaigns also featured interesting side-stories, including spending by Super PACs, entry by the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity into judicial elections, national politicians seeking to unseat an Iowa justice, and a viral video with TV stars that helped elect a high court candidate.

“The arms race around our courts is growing worse, but voters are seeing through campaigns to make courts more political and less impartial,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake.

Although final fundraising totals are not yet available, spending on television advertisements in state Supreme Court races set an all-time record this year, totaling an estimated $27.8 million as of November 5, according to data provided by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG and released by the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake—easily exceeding the record $24.4 million spent in 2004. (More than $31.7 million was spent in the 2011-2012 judicial election cycle, shattering the previous record of $26.6 million set in 2007-2008.)  Ten states saw races where TV spending exceeded a million dollars, and seven states (AL, IA, KY, MI, MS, NC, OH) saw negative ads released in the final weeks before the election.

“Judicial elections this year were characterized by attack ads, record-breaking spending, and outsized influence by special interests,” said Alicia Bannon, counsel in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program. “As judges face increased pressure to act like politicians, the integrity of our courts is at risk.”

Political parties and independent groups dominated this year’s races, in many cases relying on secret money that does not appear in campaign finance disclosure filings. More than 50% of all TV ads came from non-candidate groups, compared with roughly 30% in 2010. In Michigan, home of the nation’s most costly judicial race, the state’s two political parties vastly outspent the candidates for three seats on the state Supreme Court. The parties spent an estimated $7.4 million in the TV ad wars, according to CMAG data, compared with approximately $1.1 million in TV spending by candidates and other independent groups, with total spending in the state surpassing $8.5 million.  The Michigan Campaign Finance Network estimates that TV spending by political parties was even higher, reaching $10 million this year. In North Carolina, outside groups including Super PACs drove TV ad spending to more than $3.1 million – higher than the state’s total TV spending from 2000-2010.  Political parties and independent groups were the four top TV spenders in the general election season: the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee ($4.1 million), the Michigan Republican Party ($3.3 million), the Florida group Defend Justice from Politics ($2.7 million), and the North Carolina Judicial Coalition, a Super PAC ($2.6 million).

In yes-or-no judicial retention elections two years ago, three Iowa Supreme Court justices were unseated over a unanimous decision finding it unconstitutional to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Some predicted a new wave of ousters this year, but yesterday Justice David Wiggins won another term in office with 54.5% of the vote. And in Florida, an unprecedented special interest and partisan campaign failed to unseat three Supreme Court justices, who won by a 2-to-1 margin.

Voters also rejected referenda to change merit-based judicial selection systems in ways that could inject partisan politics into state courts.

In Missouri, 76% of voters rejected Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional amendment to give Missouri’s governor a greater hand in picking the nominating commission that screens judicial candidates. In Arizona, 73% of voters rejected a similar proposed constitutional amendment, Proposition 115. In Florida, Amendment 5, a referendum to require state Senate confirmation of Supreme Court justices who are nominated by the governor, was defeated by a margin of 63%-37%.

Three in four Americans believe that the special-interest money needed to finance such elections influences court decisions. From 2000 through 2009, the last decade for which data is available, fundraising by high-court candidates surged to $206.9 million, more than double the $83.3 million raised in the 1990s.

Overall, there were 20 states with contestable state Supreme Court seats in 2012, with a total of 46 seats at stake. Twenty-five high court judges in 13 states faced one-candidate retention elections, in which voters choose whether to give incumbents another term.

The following is a round-up of major trends and developments in the 2011-2012 judicial election campaign season, as identified by Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice. National TV spending data for judicial races, as well as links to ads, are available at “Judicial Elections 2012,” a web page jointly hosted by the Brennan Center and Justice at Stake. Additional analysis is also available at the Brennan Center’s “Buying Time 2012” web page.

Final estimates of TV ad spending, as recorded by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, are expected within a few days. Complete candidate fundraising data often are not available until weeks, and in some cases months, after the elections, meaning that campaign fundraising estimates tend to rise over time.

TV Ad Data

Television ads ran this year in 16 states with elections for the state Supreme Court: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and West Virginia.

Michigan saw the highest overall spending on Supreme Court TV ads, with about $8.5 million spent on airtime, according to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG; a state-based watchdog group estimates that political parties spent $10 million on Supreme Court “issue ads,” based on an inspection of public inspection files at local TV stations.  Alabama, with a contentious election for chief justice, was second in TV spending at $3.3 million. Alabama chief justice candidate Judge Bob Vance spent more than $1.5 million on his campaign, the most of any judicial candidate.

Of the $27.8 million in total TV spending, approximately $12 million was spent by candidates, while $15.7 million was spent by parties and independent groups.

A Closer Look at Key Judicial Races

Partisan Attacks in Florida, Iowa through Retention Elections

In Florida, all three Supreme Court justices appearing on a retention ballot won a new term after an aggressive campaign to unseat them over a few controversial rulings. Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince were targeted by Americans for Prosperity, the Republican Party of Florida and a tea party-linked group, Restore Justice 2012.

“Special interests and partisan politicians waged an unprecedented campaign to unseat three Florida justices. But Florida voters stood up for fair and impartial courts that resolve disputes based on the facts and the law, not partisan pressure,” Brandenburg said.

In Iowa, state Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins won a retention election after facing a major campaign to unseat him. Outside groups opposing Justice Wiggins pumped in national money, and two national Republican politicians, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, campaigned in Iowa against his retention. The Iowa GOP also opposed his retention. Opponents criticized his joining a unanimous 2009 ruling that permitted same-sex couples to marry; in 2010, the backlash swept three Iowa Supreme Court justices from the court.

“Iowa voters delivered a powerful message,” Brandenburg said, “that they will shield their courts when special interests try to intimidate judges.”

Justice Wiggins did not campaign or raise money in his own defense. According to the most recent state filings, retention opponents spent $466,125, including Iowans for Freedom, $317,794, and the National Organization for Marriage, $148,331. Pro-retention expenditures of $348,285 included the Iowa State Bar Association, $37,087, Progress Iowa, $4,939, Justice Not Politics Action, $301,191, and Human Rights Campaign, $5,068.

Florida’s Supreme Court had not seen a contentious retention election before this year. Americans for Prosperity, founded with the support of David and Charles Koch, released an advertisement opposing the justices and spent about $155,000, according to media reports. A pro-retention group, Defend Justice from Politics, released a TV ad urging voters to support the justices and to reject the “political power grab” by opponents of retention. The group spent more than $2.7 million on TV advertising by Nov. 5.

The targeted justices’ campaigns raised more than $1.5 million, according to state filings. “It’s terribly disappointing when judges have to raise big money from attorneys to defend against partisan attacks,” Brandenburg said.

“Judges need to be able to make hard calls based on the law, without looking over their shoulders at threats of political retaliation,” said Adam Skaggs, Senior Counsel in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program. “It’s heartening that Florida and Iowa’s voters rejected attempts to politicize their courts.”

Referenda on Judicial Selection in Missouri, Florida, and Arizona

In Missouri, voters rejected a ballot measure that sought to undermine the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, which has served as a model judicial selection system for impartial courts in more than 30 states.

Also defeated was the proposed constitutional amendment to require Florida Senate confirmation of state Supreme Court appointees. The amendment also would have given the legislature access to confidential records of the commission that investigates complaints against judges.

The Arizona measure, Proposition 115, would have allowed the governor to pick more members of the nominating commission, and eliminated a requirement that a final list of candidates recommended to the governor include individuals from different political parties.

“Tuesday’s vote will send a strong message around the country not to tamper with a system that has helped insulate judges from politics for decades,” Brandenburg said.

Judicial Ad Spending in Michigan Highest in the Nation

With three of five Supreme Court seats up for grabs in the general election, Michigan led the country in TV spending. Michigan saw more than $8.5 million and perhaps more than $10 million spent on judicial TV campaign ads, making it the highest spending state in the nation. A nominally nonpartisan judicial election model did not deter political parties and independent groups from dominating in TV spending in the races as they sought to influence the makeup of the court.

Michigan saw the most star-studded campaign video, as well as some of the most negative ads.  Judicial candidate Bridget Mary McCormack’s campaign released an online video starring the cast of the hit TV-show West Wing.  Part campaign ad and part public service announcement about the importance of voting for down-ballot Supreme Court candidates, it was the first-ever viral judicial campaign ad. McCormack herself also became the target of a particularly severe attack ad, in which she was criticized for offering to provide legal representation to detainees suspected of terrorism held at Guantanamo Bay.

Republican Stephen Markman and Democrat Bridget McCormack won eight-year terms to the high court, gaining 33% of the vote and 30%, respectively. Republican Brian Zahra was elected to a partial term on the court with 53% of the vote.

Despite the runaway spending, lax state disclosure laws mean that little is known about who funded the races. Even though nearly all of Michigan’s multi-million dollar TV spending has been financed by political parties and special interests, reported independent expenditures by parties and political action committees is only  $679,094.

Judicial Ad Spending Stays High in Alabama

From 2000-2009, Alabama had the costliest Supreme Court races in the nation. With only one of five seats on the high court contested in the 2012 general election, spending was predicted to fall far short of previous years. While overall spending in the state remained low this year relative to previous cycles, a heated race for Chief Justice generated significant campaign expenditures, leaving Alabama with the second highest TV spending level in the country.

With Republicans dominating the high court, Democratic interest in Supreme Court races had waned in recent years, causing a drop in spending. However, former justice Roy Moore proved a controversial Republican candidate, as he was best known for his removal as Chief Justice in 2003 after defying a federal court order to take down a monument of the Ten Commandments he installed in the Alabama Judicial Building.  Moore struggled to attract funding from business interests that traditionally fund Republican candidates, and was outspent by two opponents in the Republican primary. While Democratic candidate Bob Vance lacked Moore’s name recognition, he was able to attract some traditional Republican supporters — and donors — who viewed Moore as too extreme.

Vance spent more on TV ads than any other judicial candidate this year, but was unsuccessful. Moore won election to his old seat by 52-48%.

Super PACs Dump Millions into North Carolina Judicial Races

In one of the year’s most surprising races, Americans for Prosperity, other national groups and Super PACs dominated spending in a North Carolina Supreme Court contest. Incumbent Justice Paul Newby defeated Court of Appeals Judge Sam Ervin IV by 52-48% of the vote.

The court’s 4-3, right-leaning balance was at stake in the election. Justice Newby’s campaign was supported by more than

$2.5 million in TV ad spending by a conservative Super PAC called the North Carolina Judicial Coalition. AFP pitched in with viagra online canadian pharmacy its largest effort ever to swing a judicial contest and spent $225,000 for direct mail. Another Super PAC, Justice for All NC, began airing an attack ad against Judge Ervin late in the race; the Super PAC has received $865,000 from a Washington-based group, the Republican State Leadership Committee.

Judge Ervin spent more than $300,000, and Justice Newby, more than $200,000, on TV ad spending. Total TV spending in the state was more than $3.1 million.

Both candidates participated in North Carolina’s public financing program for appellate judicial campaigns, and foreswore raising significant donations from attorneys and parties who might appear before them. But a recent court ruling bars the state from providing additional funds to candidates to compensate for Super PAC spending in support of their opponents.

“The flood of outside spending has put a tremendous strain on North Carolina’s public financing system for judicial candidates,” Bannon said.

Judicial TV Ads Turned Negative in Ohio

TV ads grew increasingly negative in the run-up to the Ohio Supreme Court election, with Ohio witnessing one of the nastiest ads of the season. A Republican Party ad in support of incumbent Justice Robert Cupp described candidate Bill O’Neill as having “expressed sympathy for rapists” while serving as a judge. In a letter to the Republican Party, the Ohio State Bar Association described the ad as misleading and stated that it “impugn[s] the integrity of the judicial system, the integrity of a candidate for the Supreme Court of Ohio, and erode[s] the public trust and confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.” Justice Cupp distanced himself from the ad, stating through his campaign committee that “he has not and would not approve a commercial like this.” The Ohio State Bar Association stated that Justice Cupp needed to go further and requested that the GOP cease airing the ad.

Democrat O’Neill defeated Republican Justice Cupp for a seat on the high court. Democrats Justice Yvette McGee Brown and Michael Skindell lost to Republican challengers.

After Expensive Primary, Texas Stays Quiet

In Texas, Justice Don Willett raised $1,686,031 in his successful reelection, spending a total of $1,167,930 on TV ads in the primaries. After his victory in the primaries, no money was spent on TV advertising by his campaign, as he faced only a nominal challenger.

TV Methodology

All data on ad airings and spending on ads are calculated and prepared by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, which captures satellite data in the nation’s largest media markets. CMAG’s calculations do not reflect ad agency commissions or the costs of producing advertisements, nor do they reflect the cost of ad buys on local cable channels. The costs reported here therefore understate actual expenditures.

# # #

Today’s Pittsburgh Post Gazette editorial blasts the House Judiciary Committee for failing to advance Merit Selection legislation even as a sitting Supreme Court Justice has been indicted for alleged illegal campaign activity. “[T]he occasion has never been riper to get politics out of judicial elections. The headlines on Justice Joan Orie Melvin being charged with using her staff to do campaign work on state time surely wouldn’t be written if a merit selection process were used.”

Despite the current scandal, the House Judiciary Committee voted 13-12 to table House Bill 1815 instead of moving forward with the constitutional amendment process that would give voters the opportunity to decide for themselves whether there is a better way to choose appellate judges.

A 2010 poll of PA voters revealed that 93% want the opportunity to vote on whether we should change the way we select judges. It is unfortunate that the legislature has not yet given the people this opportunity.  The editorial’s conclusion about this failure is telling:  “What an irony: Lawmakers who want the people to keep voting for judges don’t want the people to have the chance to decide whether they want to keep voting for 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.

The Michigan Judicial Selection Task Force, a bipartisan commission made up of lawyers, judges and academics, issued a report last week proposing significant changes to the Michigan judicial selection process. Currently, judges in Michigan are nominated by their party and then elected in a nonpartisan election for renewable terms of eight years. Both the selection process and the term length are established by the Michigan Constitution.

The report highlighted the fact that in the last 10 years, approximately 86% of all litigants who appeared before the state Supreme Court had donated to the justices’ campaigns. Further, in the most recent election cycle, it has become impossible to know from whom the justices received campaign contributions. This is because of the influx of third party contributors who are not required to reveal the names of their donors.

The seven task force recommendations cover such topics as the recommended age of retirement for judges, voter education and campaign spending by judicial candidates. The 60 page report details the current problems with the system and generally describes the proposed solutions to each, including the text of suggested constitutional amendments and rule changes.

The task force report recommends that Michigan replace its current system of partisan nomination with nonpartisan primary elections for Supreme Court justices. The report argues that this change would combat the public perception that Michigan judges are partisan and make the judicial selection process consistent across all levels of the Michigan judiciary.

The majority of the recommendations made by the task force are unanimous. This includes the proposal that mid-term judicial appointments be made by through merit selection rather than the current system of pure gubernatorial appointment. Further, the task force report states that “many members of the Task Force” support the implementation of a merit selection system for all Supreme Court openings. Since replacing judicial elections with a merit selection system would require a constitutional amendment, the Task Force members “urge immediate action to give effect to the common-sense electoral reforms proposed elsewhere in this report”. However, the report expresses the hope of the Task Force members that Michigan voters implement merit selection for Supreme Court justices.

An editorial in the Detroit Free Press praises the Task Force for its work, but paints a less than hopeful picture of any kind of timely change to the judicial campaign finance system. Although “State legislators can enact such disclosure requirements in less time than it takes to cut business taxes, and Kelly, Ryan & Co. cite polling data suggesting that overwhelming majorities of both Republicans (88%) and Democrats (86%) believe such requirements are overdue,” the unfortunate reality is that such reforms are unlikely to happen.

As our own fight for merit selection has demonstrated, systemic change of this magnitude does not come quickly or easily. However, the importance of these changes mandates that we continue to advocate for reform of the judicial selection process. Hopefully, the Michigan Judicial Task Force report will act as a catalyst for the Michigan legislators and voters to take a hard look at the current system and to begin the discussion on how to improve it.

More information about the current Michigan judicial selection process is available here.

An editorial in the New York Times entitled “No Way To Choose A Judge” urges Merit Selection as a good solution for Pennsylvania. The editorial recounts recent judicial election news in Alabama and the ongoing investigation into the use of government staff for the elections of State Senator Jane Orie and her sister Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin. Then the editorial notes:

These seamy doings have helped spark a promising effort by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a nonprofit advocacy group, to persuade the State Legislature to approve a constitutional amendment that would scrap competitive partisan elections. Instead the state would adopt a new system of initial merit appointment and nonpartisan retention elections.

The editorial notes that no system of choosing judges is perfect but opines that Merit Selection “would be a start toward ridding the state’s courtrooms of politics and campaign cash.”

Passing the pending legislation is the first step in a long process of amending the constitution, a process that culminates in a public referendum. We hope the people of Pennsylvania will get the opportunity to decide whether there is a better way to choose appellate court judges.

A Public Hearing on Merit Selection  (HB 1815 and 1816) will be held by the PA House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, March 1st from 1:30-3:30 pm, at the National Constitution Center, Kirby Auditorium, 525 Arch Street, Philadelphia.  We know from public polling that Pennsylvanians want the chance to weigh in on the question of how we choose our appellate judges.  This hearing is a critical step in the process that can culminate in the people of Pennsylvania having the opportunity to vote on whether to change how we choose appellate court judges.

Among those expected to attend are:

• Rep. Ron Marsico (R-Lower Paxton), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
• Rep. Bryan Cutler (R-Peach Bottom)
• Eric A. Tilles, Esq., president of the DELVACCA chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel
• Kathleen D. Wilkinson, chancellor-elect of the Philadelphia Bar Association
• Representatives from Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction
• K.O. Myers, Director of Research and Programs for the American Judicature Society
• Bishop Mary Floyd Palmer, Pastor, Philadelphia Council of Clergy
• Matthew Berg, Director of State Affairs for Justice at Stake
• Charlotte Glauser, Judicial Specialist with the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania
• The Honorable Phyllis W. Beck, retired judge
• Walter M. Phillips, Jr., Esquire
• David N. Taylor, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association
• Michael Walker, the Urban League
• Randy Lee, Professor of Law, Widener Law School

Please consider attending. If anyone would like to submit written comments, please contact Michael Fink as soon as possible at mfink@pahousegop.com.  Comments will be accepted until the morning of February 29th and copies will be distributed at the hearing and made part of the record.

A Public Hearing on Merit Selection bills HB 1815 and 1816 will be held by the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, March 1st, at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.  We have long advocated for Merit Selection and we applaud the Committee for taking this vital first step in providing Pennsylvanians with the opportunity to enact Merit Selection and remove fundraising and electioneering from the job description of the Commonwealth’s appellate judges.

Pennsylvania currently elects its appellate judges.  This requires candidates to raise money from the people and organizations most likely to appear before them.  Judicial elections also reward campaign skills and partisanship, not experience and excellence.  Pennsylvanians deserve a system of selecting judges that ensures that we get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges.  Merit Selection is the way to do this.

If anyone is interested in testifying or submitting written testimony, please contact Michael Fink at mfink@pahousegop.com.  Please provide your testimony by Monday, February 27, 2012.