judgesonmerit.org

Editorials in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Patriot-News, and Philadelphia Inquirer criticize Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille for accepting expensive gifts and call for a change to the court’s rules. Under the current rules, created by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, trial and appellate judges may accept gifts as long as gifts valued over $250 are publicly disclosed.

All three editorials explain that the acceptance of such gifts undermines the public’s faith in an impartial judiciary. In addition, they point out that this Supreme Court supported a gift ban for 15,000 state court employees and magisterial district judges. The ban came as a part of broad new ethics rules that Chief Justice Castille described as: “fundamental to a good-faith relationship between the judiciary . . .  and the citizens.” The inequity of these different standards for different courts is clear, and disclosure of gifts does not prevent the appearance of impropriety.

The Philadelphia Inquirer also correctly draws a comparison between the harm done to public opinion of the courts when judges accept gifts and that caused when judges fundraise and campaign in judicial elections. “Millions of dollars raised for judicial campaigns create the same perception that justice is for sale, most voters say.” The problem of judicial elections can be fixed by legislators and then voters in a referendum deciding to move to merit selection; the problem of court gifts can be solved by the Supreme Court changing the rules to ban all gifts. The public deserves to have confidence that the courts are fair and impartial, and that cannot occur while money from attorneys and businesses is ever-present in the system.

An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer reveals that Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille is accepting gifts and trips from lawyers and businessmen. Although these gifts are disclosed in accordance with court rules, this practice reveals a disturbing truth about the courts in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that it alone can set and enforce ethics rules for judges and lawyers, and the rule allows Pennsylvania jurists except for magistrate district judges and traffic court judges to accept gifts as long as they are disclosed. This rule differs from those in many states and the federal rules. Gifts made to Chief Justice Castille include dinners, plane rides, tickets to sporting events, and rounds of golf, and at times they come from people with cases before the court.

 Under the current rules, this practice is legal but very disturbing. When judges accept gifts from lawyers who come before them, it creates the same problem that exists when judges fundraise and collect campaign contributions – the appearance that justice is for sale. As the article points out: “Ethics experts say jurists should avoid taking anything that could give even an appearance of a conflict.” In addition, the model code designed by the American Bar Association says judges should not accept gifts that: “might be viewed as intended to influence the judge’s decision in a case.”

 Public perception of the impartiality of the court is hurt when judges accept gifts from lawyers or from people or entities that might later come before them in court. Disclosure of these gifts is not enough to combat this; judges should be prohibited from accepting the gifts – period.

Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ronald Castille, in an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer about the recent charges filed against State Senator Jane Orie and her sister Janine Orie, who works in the judicial office of Justice Joan Orie Melvin, expressed concern about how the developing story might impact the Court: “‘It’s not good, I can tell you that.’”

The Chief Justice noted that the allegations are related to political campaigns, including Justice Orie Melvin’s recent successful campaign for the Supreme Court, not the Court itself.  However, he also acknowledged that:

[T]he public may not see the fine line between the court and the allegations – especially because the charges come on the heels of the “kids-for-cash” scandal in Luzerne County, where two former judges are accused of sending juvenile defendants to detention centers in return for $2.6 million in kickbacks.

This “fine line” is something we’ve always found problematic — it’s hard to separate the justices and their work on the Court from the political process that got them to the bench.  That’s one reason that the public perceives that campaign contributions may influence judicial decision-making.  And it’s a big reason to treat judges differently from other elected officials — not only once they are in office, but also while they are trying to reach office.  That is, judges are different and should be selected differently.

The Chief Justice noted that Justice Orie Melvin should recuse herself from any case involving the Allegheny County prosecutor’s office because presiding over cases involving those prosecuting one’s family members could create a perception of impropriety.  Jack Orie lawyer (and brother) to Senator Orie and Janine Orie (and brother of Justice Orie Melvin) stated that Justice Orie Melvin would recuse from such cases.

It remains to be seen how the ongoing investigation and prosecution will impact the Court.  As we reported yesterday, the Pittsburgh Times-Tribune reported that a second grand jury is being impaneled to continue the investigation, and Jack Orie expressed the belief that it would be targeting Justice Orie Melvin.

An article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review explores how the Caperton decision is motivating discussion and dialouge in Pennsylvania.  According to Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ronald Castille , the decision “raises questions for an elected judiciary.”  He noted that Pennsylvania judgesand justices will need to explore whether recusal rules need to be rewritten.

But the issues go deeper than that.  People in Pennsylvania are seriously talking about bigger changes, incuding changing the way we select appellate court judges.  PMC Executive Director Lynn Marks explained, “‘[The Caperton decision] puts the issue of merit selection squarely on the radar screen of important issues for Pennsylvania to tackle.’”

State Representative Matt Smith, sponsor of the recently introduced Merit Selection legislation, concurred and noted that the United States’ Supreme Court’s Caperton decision is making some legislators turn to Merit Selection as the answer: “‘Even people who said as recently as a year ago they opposed this, now those folks see the need to eliminate money and politics from the process.’”  The best way to do that is Merit Selection.

The hot topic in Pennsylvania is the effect of contributions to judicial campaigns. Two papers ran features on the issue this weekend.  The Wilkesbarre Times-Leader posed this question:

Two lawyers appear in court. One donated thousands to the judge’s campaign and the other gave nothing. Will they be treated the same?

Absolutely, say five of the seven elected Luzerne County judges who accepted campaign donations from lawyers.

But getting people to believe that is a problem, said Shira Goodman [of PMC].

The Times-Leader interviewed several sitting judges about campaing contributions from lawyers and law firms.  Although the judges explained that the contributions do not influence their decision-making in the court room, they acknowledged that as elections become more expensive and as public hostility to lawyers grows, things might have to change.  Judge Thomas Burke explained that those changes might include Merit Selection:

“If we reach the point where the perception is that lawyer contributions – or any outside contributions to judicial campaigns – pose an unfair advantage that will tilt the level playing field in favor of one side or another, then we likely have to consider alternatives to the present system.”

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review also examined the perception created by contributions to judicial campaigns.  According to Chief Justice Ronald Castille:

“It’s not a healthy situation. . . . I’ve seen those polls where the public thinks campaign contributions affect judges. It’s not healthy for the system. We want people to have confidence in the system.”

The article explained that there are no rules that outright prohibit a judge from hearing a case in which a lawyer or party contributed to the campaign.  PMC Executive Director Lynn Marks explained that this causes a fundamental problem: “When you go to court, you shouldn’t be worried whether your lawyer gave a campaign contribution.”

It is time to get judges out of the fundraising business.  Merit Selection can accomplish this. Chief Justice Castille favors Merit Selection.  It’s time to let the people of Pennsylvania weigh in.

In an interview with Pittsburgh television station WTAE, Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ronald Castille decries the money involved in electing judges and calls for a Merit Selection system. Long a supporter of Merit Selection, Chief Justice Castille notes that recent elections are further eroding public confidence in the courts:

“The feeling is out there because of the money that goes around in an elective position like mine that somebody is not gonna get a fair shake. That’s not the way it should be…Those things do erode citizens’ confidence in justice,” said Castille. . . . “The reality of a threat to impartiality I think is there,” said Castille.

Chief Justice Castille agreed with University of Pittsburgh law professor Tom Ross that the way to solve this problem is to stop electing appellate judges:

“Yeah, I would do that just to get the corrosive effect of money out of the election process… The citizens ought to believe they’re going to get justice no matter who is on the other side, or no mater [sic] who in our particular election process, no matter who supported what justice,” said Castille.

Thanks to the Chief Justice for speaking out about the problems inherent in electing judges and supporting a change to Merit Selection for the appellate courts.