judgesonmerit.org

PMC’s letter to the editor in response to the Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial on Caperton v. Massey identifies Merit Selection as the way to get judges out of the fundraising business.  In the letter, PMC argues that rules requiring recusal in cases involving campaign contributions are a good first step, but more is needed to address the poisonous role of money in judicial selection:

It’s time to get judges out of the fund-raising business altogether. Today, when most of those surveyed are worried about the impact of contributions on how judges rule, we need a system that takes money far away from the scales of justice. When you go to court, you want a judge who considers the facts and the law; you shouldn’t be worrying about whether your lawyer or the opposing side gave a campaign contribution. Replacing elections for appellate court judges with merit selection is the way to eliminate this concern.

This weekend’s issue of Parade Magazine briefly recaps the Caperton v. Massey case and asks “Can Judges Be Bought?”  Justice At Stake’s Charles Hall is quoted:

If you were in court and found out that your opponent was one of the biggest contributors to the judge, would you be happy?  I think almost all Americans would say, ‘I want a different judge.’

There’s an on-line poll asking readers: “Should a judge be allowed to hear a case involving a campaign contributor?”  As of this writing, 93% of respondents answered “No.”  We’ll tune in for final results when the polls close.

Two of Pennsylvania’s major newspapers, inspired by the Caperton v. Massey argument this week, are calling for Merit Selection.  In an editorial, the Philadelphia Inquirer argues:

Spending on statewide judicial races underscores the messy business involving the river of money that flows through judicial elections. Checks often are written by lawyers who then appear before judges – an apparent conflict that the majority of voters have told pollsters they find troubling. . . .

The antidote to those elections, of course, is to switch to the merit-based appointment of appellate judges. . . .

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette concurred on its editorial page.  Quoting Justice Kennedy’s observation that “Our whole system is designed to ensure confidence in our judgments,” the Post-Gazette argued, “Of course, that system would be much better if judges were selected in merit-based systems not susceptible to campaign contributors.”

As we’ve stated repeatedly, we think recusal rules in cases involving campaign contributors is a good place to start to address the problem of money in judicial elections. That’s why we joined an amicus brief in the Caperton case.  But the better course of action – - and a more permanent solution — is to get appellate court judges out of the fundraising business altogether.  Merit Selection accomplishes that, and we’re heartened to see these public calls for real reform.

WHYY, the NPR affiliate in Philadelphia, interviewed PMC Associate Director Shira Goodman about the Caperton v. Massey case, its possible impact on judicial elections on Pennsylvania, and the efforts to bring Merit Selection to the Pennsylvania appellate courts.  To listen,Download Audio (mp3) here.

Our friends at Gavel Grab offer a complete analysis of the Caperton v. Massey argument, including commentary from PMC, the League of Women Voters and other amici.  Gavel Grab quotes PMC Associate Director Shira Goodman:

“Pennsylvania, which elects all judges in partisan elections, has seen first hand the steadily increasing influence of money in judicial elections. Coupled with that has been the decreasing public confidence in the impartiality of our courts. The more money that comes in, the less confidence the people have. The scales of justice need to be rebalanced. A strong decision by the Supreme Court requiring recusal in at least some cases will help to do that.”

Also posted on Gavel Grab is an email Justice At Stake sent to its Partners (including PMC) about the case, concluding with this encouragement:

We now must wait until the Supreme Court rules, but the last few months already represent an extraordinary victory in educating the public on threats to our courts, and in commanding media attention on the critical issue of protecting impartial courts from special-interest money.

The United States Supreme Court has just posted the transcript from this morning’s oral argument in Caperton v. Massey.  We’ll post some highlights when we finish reading!

In its report on today’s oral argument in Caperton v. Massey, ABC News offers this nugget:

Citing the amount of money Blankenship raised for the ad campaign to elect Benjamin, the timing of his case, and Blankenship’s central role in the proceeding, Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer said, “all of those things make a serious risk of bias. . . you put it together, and it spells trouble.”

Justice Breyer perfectly summed up the problem with money being part of the judicial selection process — it just adds up to trouble.

Lyle Denniston over at Scotusblog offers a short (soon to be expanded) recap of today’s oral argument in Caperton v. Massey:

Tugged between a sense that a constitutional ruling on judges’ duty to take themselves out of cases if bias is suspected should provide very clear guidance, and a sense that it might be written only to apply in the most extreme factual scenarios, the Supreme Court set itself a difficult task. . .

Here lies the big challenge presented by campaign contributions — when do they cross the line from the cost of doing business in a judicial election state to creating an impermissible appearance of bias.   We think that’s a tough line to draw, even for the United States Supreme Court.

That’s why we think the best solution to the money problem is to get judges out of the fundraising business altogether.

The Associated Press offers a useful account of this morning’s oral argument in Caperton v. Massey. Although it’s always hard to tell how a case will be decided based on the oral argument, the A.P. offers a glimpse inside the courtroom:

The Supreme Court appears to be willing to say that elected judges must step aside from cases in which there would be at least an appearance of bias if they took part.

During lively arguments Tuesday in a closely watched case from West Virginia, the court’s four liberal justices and the conservative-leaning Anthony Kennedy all expressed support for a ruling that the Constitution’s guarantee of a fair trial could require judges not to participate in a case in which there was a likelihood of bias.

Honing in on the real problem created by a system in which judicial candidates raise funds from potential future litigants and lawyers, Justice Kennedy noted:  “Our whole system is designed to ensure confidence in judges.”  As PMC has argued — and as recent polls continue to confirm — the current system is undermining that confidence.

We will post links to the argument transcripts and additional news accounts as they become available. And we will keep you up to date on developments in this very important case.

In an editorial inspired by today’s United States Supreme Court argument in Caperton v. Massey, the Harrisburg Patriot-News calls for changing the way we select judges in Pennsylvania:

Given that real life judicial elections can, in fact, be just as intriguing as fiction, should we continue to allow the possibility that money can influence not only whom we elect, but potentially the decisions made by judges once they are on the bench?

Citing recent polls showing very high levels of concern about the influence of campaign contributions on judicial decision-making, the editorial argues that it’s time to get money out of the judicial selection process.  Recusal rules are a good start, but more significant reform is needed:

We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will agree that recusals are necessary when judges are faced with issues that impact their financial backers.

But we also hope there will be action in the state General Assembly this session to push legislation that changes our system from electing appellate judges to selecting them based on merit. That way we can get money, once and for all, erased from the appellate court equation.

Well put, and a very good agenda for court reform in Pennsylvania.