Recently, an AP article looked at various positions at stake in Tuesday’s primary election, making note of difference in candidates, issues, endorsements, and money that has been raised. Sadly, political issues are playing an ever growing role in judicial elections. An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer explains that this is due in part to a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that relaxed restrictions on what judicial candidates can talk about.

The change in these restrictions is apparent from judicial candidate Paul Panepinto’s campaign website, which announces that he is Roman Catholic and “pro life.” Panepinto, currently a Philadelphia Common Pleas judge, is running for an open seat on the Commonwealth Court. PMC’s executive director Lynn Marks explains that the statement “does not cross the line of what a candidate can and can’t do, but it does send a message.”

Issue voting is a problem in judicial elections because it makes our choice in judges too similar to how we choose politicians. The judiciary is different from the other branches of government, and the way we choose judges should likewise be different. Pennsylvania deserves a fair and impartial judiciary with judges selected based on their qualifications and experience. Judicial elections allow money and politics to play too great a role in the process. It’s time to get judges out of the business of campaigning, and Merit Selection is the best way to accomplish that.

The AP’s report on a speech retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gave Monday at Seattle University Law School opens with this eye catcher:

The first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court says there’s a serious problem with the government in Washington and many other states: They elect their judges.

O’Connor spoke at a conference addressing the recent Caperton v. Massey decision, which we have blogged about previously. “‘Multimillion-dollar judicial campaigns make it difficult to know whether a judge is deciding a case based on the merits or on concerns about reelection,’” opined the former Justice.

O’Connor emphasized how the increase in funding for judicial campaigns poses a threat to the neutrality of the bench: “She told a sold-out audience that threats to judicial independence are rising exponentially as more and more money pours into judicial races around the country.”

Consider that last point in light of a potentially broad decision in the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Citizens United v. FEC, which could open a vast new source of corporate funds to be spent on state judicial campaigns. The argument for removing judges from the political process will only get stronger as corporate money plays a bigger role in campaign financing.

Over at Caffeinated Politics, there’s some good advice: “Wisconsin Should Listen to Sandra Day O’ Connor.”  We think that’s a good idea for Pennsylvania as well.