judgesonmerit.org

The Public Opinion of Chambersburg has an in-depth article about the upcoming judicial elections.  It opens with this assessment of how elections work:

Lawyers become judges with the help of their peers.  Judges will decide cases argued by the same lawyers who supported them or opposed them during the campaign.

Judicial candidates bristle at the suggestion they could play favorites or hold grudges from the bench. But, they fret about appearances.

The article notes that the four candidates running for two open judicial seats on the Franklin/Fulton County Court of Common Pleas each have the backing of local attorneys, and it goes on to explain that the campaign of one candidate is being run by the current District Attorney.  Asked about whether or how that will affect future cases heard by that candidate, PMC Executive Director Lynn A. Marks explained:

“I don’t know of anything legally or ethically wrong with that. . . . It will raise questions if she is elected. Will she be seen as partial to the district attorney’s office? It will raise a question when criminal cases come before her.”

The article explores the candidates’ positions on when recusal — especially in cases involving lawyers assisting the judicial campaign — would be appropriate.  In addition, the article raises the question of campaign fundraising; all of the candidates have accepted campaign contributions from attorneys.  This is permissible under the law and the Code of Judicial Conduct, but it does raise perception problems with the public:

Clients are less likely to understand and accept the process than their attorneys, according to [PMC's Marks]. When you’re in court, you shouldn’t have to worry about whether your attorney gave as much to the judge’s campaign as your opponent’s lawyer, she said.

This is a central problem with the judicial election process. The people who are most involved in the process — including as campaign contributors — are the lawyers who later practice before the judges.  This makes sense, but it may foster the public’s lack of confidence in the ability of the judges to later be impartial when those lawyers appear before them.   We need a better way to select judges.