judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in the Chicago Tribune calls for Illinois to get rid of judicial elections and move to a merit selection system. In making its point, the editorial looks at the great expense and negative tone of the campaigns for and against current Illinois Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride. The Tribune announces that the core issue of this race is politics, with the balance of power on the court at stake. It identifies business interests as funding one side of the race and labor and the Illinois House Speaker as largely funding the other. The editorial notes: “This kind of election challenges every judge’s independence.” This is true because regardless of the outcome it illustrates the role of money and fundraising, as well as making it clear that controversial decisions can make judges into political targets.

The editorial does not stop at identifying the problem, it also proposes a solution: “We think this business of electing judges has to go. We need a merit selection system.” It goes on to say: “The public can’t have confidence in judges when their elections are dominated by gaudy cash from interests groups – or the speaker of the House.” We agree that judicial elections undermine public confidence in an independent judiciary and that merit selection is the best way to restore that confidence and ensure fair and impartial courts.

Addressing the St. Joseph County Bar Association in Indiana, retired United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor shared her wisdom and experience regarding judicial elections and declared that Merit Selection was the solution.  As the Chicago Tribune reports, Justice O’Connor explained that the money involved in judicial elections leads the public to have less confidence in judges:

“I hope that lawmakers will be cautious and look at what an independent judiciary has meant to this nation,” she said. “Our judges must be capable of staying above politics if they’re going to serve the function of making impartial decisions.”

This makes good sense.  We hope Pennsylvania will heed Justice O’Connors words.

One of the main reasons critics offer for their opposition to Merit Selection is their belief in allowing people to vote.  This argument ignores the facts that implementing Merit Selection requires a vote by the people and that Merit Selection involves voting in retention elections.  In addition, the data unfortunately shows that people actually don’t vote in judicial elections.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election this year, only 18.4% of the voters participated.  That’s even less than the 19% who voted in last year’s Wisconsin high court race.

Pennsylvania is holding judicial elections this year.  Traditionally, voter turn-out in judicial elections here has been very low.  What will our voter turn-out look like?