judgesonmerit.org

Listen to Lynn Marks, Executive Director of PMC and PMCAction, discuss Merit Selection and the reasons we need to change the way we select appellate court judges on Lincoln Radio Journal. Talking with host Lowman Henry, Marks discussed the problems inherent in judicial elections, the benefits of Merit Selection, and the need to get this issue before the public.

Although change comes slowly in Pennsylvania, especially when it involves amending the constitution, it’s nice to know that we’re not alone in worrying about judicial elections. It’s a common concern in states that elect their appellate judges, especially as the fundraising associated with judicial campaigns continues to rise. Folks in Alabama, Wisconsin and West Virginia have been raising similar concerns this campaign season. They are concluding that Merit Selection is a better way to pick appellate court judges.

Recently, we posted about a Texas Supreme Court decision that was drawing headlines because all nine of the justices had accepted campaign contributions from the winning party. Now, another Texas court decision is making news for similar reasons.

An appeals court in Texas recently overturned a verdict against a large drug company. What’s raising eyebrows is the fact that all three of the judges on the panel have taken campaign donations from law firms representing the victorious defendant.

The reaction of the attorney representing the plaintiff underscores the big-money problem with judicial elections. From the AP story:

[Attorney W. Mark Lanier] said the ruling demonstrates that Texas should not have elected judges, asserting it was “outrageous” that all three judges on the appellate panel took campaign contributions from law firms involved in defending Merck.

Would you want to go to court, knowing that the lawyer or law firm you were up against had given money to the presiding judge or judges? It’s understandable that litigants in such circumstances are concerned that campaign contributions may influence verdicts. The problem is not whether or not there is such an influence; the perception that there could be reduces public confidence in the courts and undermines the judicial process.

It’s time for Pennsylvania to remove campaign money from the judicial equation. We can do this by adopting Merit Selection for the appellate courts.

In their May 15th cover story about the effort to bring Merit Selection of appellate judges to Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Public Record rehashed the old argument that Merit Selection supporters are conspiring to take away the right to vote for appellate judges. In an effort to set the Record straight, we wrote a letter to its editor. It was published in the May 29th edition, and is available online. As intern K.O. Myers explained, “Reasonable people can disagree about the best way to select appellate judges, but the voters of Pennsylvania should have the opportunity to weigh in on the issue. That’s all we’re asking for.”

The campaign for Merit Selection is an effort to bring to Pennsylvania a better process for selecting appellate court judges. It is not about the judges currently serving on the appellate courts.

Pennsylvania has many qualified, skilled, experienced and fair appellate judges. But they reached the bench despite the electoral process, not because of it. We’d get a lot more good judges under Merit Selection, which is designed to bring such people to the bench.

Sometimes the electoral process produces good, capable judges, and sometimes it produces the best fundraisers and campaigners, who may not be the best judges. Pennsylvania deserves a system that is designed to get the best judges on the appellate courts.

Elections are the best way to select presidents, governors, mayors, senators, and representatives — public officials who represent specific constituencies and advocate for identified policies. Judges have a different role — they are sworn to evenhandedly apply the law, without regard to personal preference, political pressure, popular will, or promises made to voters or campaign donors. Pennsylvania needs a system of selecting judges that respects this difference.

This campaign is not about the judges currently sitting on our appellate courts; it’s about the process that brought them there. Merit Selection is a better way.

This weekend, State Representative and Deputy Speaker Josh Shapiro (D -153) held a town meeting for his constituents. Shapiro identified Merit Selection of appellate judges as a critical reform for Pennsylvania. He explained why judges are different from other public officials and why it makes sense to use a different process to select them.

Representative Shapiro answered constituent questions about the pending Merit Selection proposal and invited PMC/PMCAction’s Shira Goodman to provide information about judicial selection in Pennsylvania and other states.

We thank Representative Shapiro for his strong support of Merit Selection and his co-sponsorship of House Bill 2488 & House Bill 2386. H.B. 2488 is the first step toward letting the people of Pennsylvania decide how we should choose appellate court judges.