First, Rose explains that the current Merit Selection system has done a good job finding qualified candidates to fill interim vacancies:

The commission has a balanced membership from all areas of the state, Republicans and Democrats, and half are non-lawyers. . . .

Members receive more information about the candidates that voters do (health, financial and bar association records) and spend days reviewing the information in the selection process. . . .

The commission works hard to select the three best qualified candidates, and the governors have in good faith tried to pick the best.

Rose also notes that money is a tremendous problem in the electoral system that would be eliminated by Merit Selection:

[M]oney plays an enormous role in the present process of electing judges and it is impossible to effectively regulate it.  First, no restriction can be placed on a candidate’s use of his or her own money — this the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated.

The candidate with more money will always have a great advantage in an election. . . .

Further, no restriction can be placed on private groups or individuals unconnected with the candidates from running their own campaign for or against a candidate.

Rose closes with this very practical, common-sense argument:

[T]here is no perfect way to select judges, but we should not throw our hands in the air and quit trying to improve the system.

We agree, and that’s why we keep working to implement a Merit Selection system for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.