judgesonmerit.org

PMC and PMCAction are pleased to announce that the House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing on Merit Selection on November 17 from 1:30-3:30 pm in Philadelphia.  The hearing will address the pending Merit Selection legislation, H.B. 1815 and H.B. 1816.

This hearing is an important step in the constitutional amendment process, a process that culminates in a referendum election in which the people of Pennsylvania decide whether to change how we select appellate court judges.  The hearing offers a chance to begin an important dialogue about this critical issue.  We are grateful to the House Judiciary Committee for providing the forum for this public discussion.

The hearing will be held at the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Quadrangle, Cafe 58, First Floor, Irvine Auditorium.  The address is 3401 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA.

An article in Reuters examines an effort occupying several states: the quest to find a better way to select judges.

The article profiles the ongoing debate in Tennessee over whether to continue its Merit Selection system.  Defenders of the current system, including the legal and business communities, argue that ” judicial elections would lead to expensive campaigns — that they’d be asked to bankroll — and biased judges.”  By contrast, those pressing to change the system are eager to get more conservative Republicans on the bench.

The article also looks to Pennsylvania, recognizing the recent introduction of Merit Selection legislation designed as “an an effort to rein in the role of money and fundraising in judicial elections.”  We hope this effort will be successful and will lead to the opportunity for Pennsylvanians to decide how they want to choose appellate court judges.  (Remember, amending the Constitution to implement Merit Selection requires identical legislation to pass in two successive sessions and then a positive public referendum.)

We know there will be discussion and debate. We just think it’s time to be talking about this critical issue.

In an editorial posted Sunday, the Times-Tribune of Scranton strongly supports Merit Selection and the constitutional amendment recently introduced in the Pennsylvania Legislature to change the way the state selects judges.

The editorial examines the corruption trial of State Senator Jane Orie, who is charged with using public resources to conduct her campaign and the campaign of her sister, state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin. The editorial calls the Supreme Court race that Orie Melvin won as “the most expensive and most politically volatile in state history, both sides funded by millions of dollars of contributions from parties with interests before the courts.” A key issue during that election was partisan control of the Supreme Court.

The editorial argues:

Even when the political stakes aren’t that high, statewide appellate elections are a dubious way to select people for high office. Faced with names on the ballot that they probably never had heard during the campaign, voters often rely on ethnicity, party affiliation or geography – all of which have little to do with competence.”

When we stand before judges, we want to feel that our cases will be decided fairly and by the rule of law, not by party lines or special interests. We want to know that judges are qualified and were seated because of those merits, not because they were the most successful at political glad-handing and gathering campaign contributions. The people of Pennsylvania deserve to have confidence in their judges.

The editorial cautions that “no system, including the proposed one, is perfect,” but that under merit selection, Pennsylvanians would at least know that when judges are seated, “qualifications played a major role in their selection.”

The editorial closes with an exhortation to both Harrisburg and Pennsylvania’s voters: “The Legislature should approve the amendment in two sessions, as required by the state constitution, and send it to the voters for approval.”

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts releases a new educational video today that explains the numerous problems inherent in electing appellate court judges, how implementing a Merit Selection system would solve those problems, and how Merit Selection works.

Supporters of Merit Selection, including former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, former Superior Court Judges Phyllis Beck and Justin Johnson, and members of the Reform coalition  explain in their own words the benefits of Merit Selection and why it is a better way to select appellate court judges.

The video is available here.

PMC and PMCAction are pleased to announce that Representative Bryan Cutler (R -Lancaster ) along with Representative Josh Shapiro (D -Montgomery), has introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution to institute a Merit Selection system for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

The legislation consists of two bills. The first, H.B. 1815, is a constitutional amendment. The second, H.B. 1816, is implementing legislation that sets forth a detailed explanation of how the Merit Selection system would operate.

Rep. Ron Marsico (R-Dauphin), chair of the Judiciary Committee, is planning to schedule a hearing in October.

We are pleased that this important issue is before the House, and that it again has bipartisan support.  The growing coalition supporting Merit Selection demonstrates that judicial selection reform is an issue that unites Republicans, Democrats, good government advocates, business organizations, lawyers, nonlawyers, minority groups, and all those who care about ensuring that Pennsylvania has the most qualified, fair and impartial judiciary.

We look forward to the House’s consideration of the legislation, and we hope this is only the first step in the process that will ultimately give the people of Pennsylvania the opportunity to decide whether there is a better way to select our appellate court judges.

The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch reports on Missouri providing additional transparency to its Supreme Court nomination process. For the first time, Missouri’s Appellate Judicial Commission will meet in open session when interviewing candidates.

The article quotes John Johnston, president of the Missouri Bar. “The more people see of the merit-selection process that we have in Missouri, the more confident they will become that it is the best way to select our judges,” Johnston is quoted as saying, commenting also that “Judges aren’t the same as other elected officials… You don’t want judges out raising money and beholden to special interests. You want judges to be impartial.”

We think that any move that allows the public to more clearly understand how judges are selected is a positive development, and applaud Missouri for continuing to improve its merit selection process.

This week, Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Sue Bell announced her resignation effective August 1st, 2011. In her statement, she cited the failure of AL courts to modify their judicial selection system as one of her reasons for leaving. “Alabama appellate court justices should be selected either on merit, and retained or rejected by a vote of all the people, or at least cam­paign without the added po­litical emphasis of party la­bels,” declared Cobb. According to former president of the Alabama State Bar Association, J. Mark White, “She tried every way possible, along with the bar, to get a more civilized and economical way to select our judges.”

The numbers representing campaign costs in Alabama’s partisan elections are astounding. A study conducted by Justice at Stake revealed that AL Supreme Court candidates raised over $40.9 million in the past decade. According to a Thomson Reuters News & Insight article, “Cobb herself received $2.62 million in contributions during the 2006 Alabama Supreme Court election, a multi-candidate election that was the costliest state judicial race ever, with candidates raising a total of $13.5 million, according to Follow the Money.” In her resignation, Cobb explained that this method of judicial selection “perpetuate[s] the perception that judges are selected more on campaign contributions than on ability.”

Calls for judicial selection reform can be heard throughout the country. New York recently changed their recusal standards in an effort to restore public confidence in judicial impartiality. An impassioned editorial beseeches Alabama to do the same: “If anything, Alabamians should question judges’ impartiality even more than people do in other states, and the numbers from national polls already are high. In a Harris Poll last June, 71 percent of those surveyed nationally believe campaign contributions to judges have some or a great deal of influence on their decisions.”

The Justice at Stake survey lists Pennsylvania second after Alabama in campaign contributions, receiving around $21 million. However, recusal rules alone will not solve the problem. PMC agrees with Chief Justice Cobb that judges should not be obligated to raise millions of dollars to earn a seat on the bench and worries about qualified candidates who may be dissuaded by the need to raise enormous amounts of money. Cobb explained, “Another statewide race at this point in time would require me to raise millions of dollars while constantly endeavoring to appear and remain impartial and would require me to sacrifice precious time which I could be spending with my family.”

In response to recent criticism that financial support from George Soros is an attempt to “stack the courts,” Executive Director Lynn Marks affirmed the virtue of merit selection in an interview with FoxNews.com. “Merit selection would end the money race and get judges out of the fundraising business.” Marks further critiqued judicial elections’ emphasis on political connections saying that potentially qualified candidates “don’t put their name in for nominations because they think they don’t have the political connections or access to dollars.” Politics play an especially significant role in Pennsylvania’s judicial elections in which candidates identify with either the Democratic or Republican Party and must raise huge amounts of money to win their races.

Marks highlighted the need for merit selection for appellate courts explaining, “judges should resolve disputes based on evidence – they’re not supposed to be responsive to public pressure.” Contrary to assertions that appointment of judges through merit selection is undemocratic, merit selection actually requires that the public support it. As Marks said, “Merit selection requires a change in the Constitution, so a bill must… go before the public. So when people say, ‘oh, you’re changing the way we vote’ — yes, but only if the people want to change the way we vote.”

Pennsylvania State Senator Jane Earll (R-Erie) has introduced two bills that would move Pennsylvania toward Merit Selection of appellate judges. Senate Bill 843 would amend the state Constitution to allow Merit Selection of appellate judges. Senate Bill 842 would modify state law to create the necessary implementing procedures. Both measures were referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Making the transition to Merit Selection requires amending the state constitution. An amendment bill would need to pass in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly, and then receive a majority vote in a public referendum.

The Des Moines Register reports that a federal judge has dismissed the lawsuit challenging the presence of lawyers elected by lawyers on Iowa’s nominating commission. The lawsuit, brought by Indiana based lawyer James Bopp, contended that these seven lawyer members should be excluded from the nomination process. The suit argued that the procedure violated the constitutional equal protection rights of the four Iowan plaintiffs.

United States District Court Judge Robert Pratt dismissed the case, calling these arguments “fatally flawed.” Describing his reasoning, Judge Pratt wrote in the ruling:

“Undoubtedly, the right to vote for political representatives is the bedrock of American democracy. In this case, however, plaintiffs are asking the court to radically expand the scope of this fundamental right beyond all existing precedent and to recognize an entirely new 14^th Amendment ‘right’ to greater influence the selection of judges.”

An Iowa press release described Attorney General Tom Miller’s response to the decision: “Today Judge Pratt very soundly upheld the will of the people of Iowa. This is a significant ruling that affirms our right as citizens to choose how we select our Supreme Court Justices.”