judgesonmerit.org

Prominent blogger Dan Cirucci made an astute observation in his coverage of the swearing in ceremony for Superior Court Judge Anne E. Lazarus:

In his remarks [Congressman and Democratic City Committee Chair] Bob Brady noted that Judge Lazarus sought the Superior Court seat in a previous election and lost. . . . But in explaining her initial loss Brady said that there were many factors involved in her loss “none of which had to do with her quality or ability.”

And that’s the point, Congressman Brady.

The election of judges is wrong precisely because the process has nothing to do with “quality or ability” and everything to do with political access, connections, deals, campaign contributions, special interests, geography, the sound of the candidate’s name and other factors that aren’t even remotely related to merit. It’s a disgrace.

How sad that good, dedicated, honest judges like Judge Lazarus have to go through this process and jump through these hoops to get onto the bench. How sad that they have to pa[y] homage to political bosses and assorted ward leaders and hangers-on.

It’s unseemly. And it’s the wrong way to pick judges.

Well said, Dan. And, so we don’t have to toot our own horn – he continues:

That’s why we support our friends at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) who have been fighting the good fight for merit selection. Get involved with PMC and join them in the battle for great judges and a first rate judicial system

We reported earlier that the Philadelphia Democratic party wanted unified support for its judicial slate this time around.  We also reported that certain ward leaders were not certain they would be able to agree.  Now, the Legal Intelligencer reports on its blog that leaders of the City’s Eighth Ward have agreed to support the party’s endorsed candidates who also received recommended ratings from the Philadelphia Bar Association. Ward co-chairman Gregory Harvey explained the ward’s decision:

[Democratic Party leader Bob] Brady appears willing to tolerate the decision of a ward, which finds the bar association’s recommendations important, to only back the members of the DCC slate who are “recommended,” Harvey said. But ward committee officials did not want to endorse candidates without the City Committee’s backing, since Brady has pushed for a unified citywide ticket without other names. . .

Once again, this situation raises the question of what the electoral system is designed to do.  Unlike Merit Selection, which is designed to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the bench, judicial elections place other considerations first, and qualified candidates reach the bench despite the system, not because of it.  This does not make sense to us.

The Clout column in the Philadelphia Daily News offers an update on a story we reported about the Philadelphia Democratic party’s effort to ensure that its endorsed local judicial candidates receive total party support:

[Party leader Bob] Brady told ward leaders that their committeepeople would carry the party’s endorsed candidates this year or they could forget about Election Day street money.

There’s just one problem: Some ward leaders can’t tell their committeepeople what to do.

“In our ward, committeepeople want to meet the candidates and make a decision after we discuss it,” said Mike Boyle, who heads the 5th Ward, in Center City.

The column identifies a total of five ward leaders who will challenge the party discipline effort.  “Brady said he hopes the independent wards will support the party’s slate. It won’t help that two of the party’s Common Pleas Court candidates, Roxanne Covington and Sharon Williams Losier, were rated “not recommended” by the Philadelphia Bar Association.”

This is what happens when judges run for election like other officials — party politics, political games, street money all play a role in determining who reaches the bench.  That doesn’t make a lot of sense when the ultimate goal — at least in our minds — is to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges.

The “Clout” section of the Philadelphia Daily News reports that the Philadelphia Democratic party is working to ensure that this year the party is unified behind its endorsed judicial candidates for the local courts: “Democratic City Committee chairman Bob Brady has cracked the whip on ward leaders, telling them that they can either support the party’s judicial candidates in the May 19 primary or forget about “street money” for Election Day operations.”

Brady apparently has been dismayed by the dilution of the influence of the party endorsement, in large part due to the use of “consultants” who, for large fees, connected candidates with ward leaders to make their own “endorsement” deals.

At the party’s meeting in late March, the ward leaders committed to support the endorsed candidates and passed a resolution under which candidates who run against the endorsed slate will not be considered by the party to fill future judicial vacancies.  One ward leader said, “‘It makes the party brand worth something. . . and it will lower the cost of judicial elections.”

In Bucks County, the political parties are also working to ensure that party endorsements mean something, but with a twist. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the local Democratic and Republican parties have united behind a slate of three candidates, two Republicans and one Democrat, for the upcoming judicial elections.

PMC, when questioned about this, explained:

Bipartisan endorsements, though informative, are not akin to merit selection. . . . “It doesn’t remove problems such as having to raise money from lawyers who come before the judges.”

Why should party politics determine who becomes a judge?  Shouldn’t qualifications, skill, experience and a reputation for honesty, integrity and fairness be the key factors in determining who reaches the bench?  Under Merit Selection, that’s what would happen.  Judicial elections focus on other factors — like fundraising ability, skill as a campaigner, and party politics.  We think there’s a better way.