If you’re a fan of author John Grisham, you may recognize the plot of his latest legal thriller, The Appeal, which Grisham admits was inspired by the events in West Virginia.  And as rank as the fictional outcome or the real events may seem to fair-minded Americans, the same outrage could have been perpetrated in any of the thirty-nine states that still elect at least some of their judges in contested elections.

Ewegen notes that his state, Colorado avoids these problems because Colorado uses Merit Selection: “This system is infinitely preferable to letting rich litigators rig the scales of justice by paying millions to elect judges predisposed to their side to the courts that will decide the manipulators’ cases.”

Ewegen goes on to explain the Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton and concedes that the decision, combined with long-existing requirements that judges recuse if they have a direct financial outcome in the case may solve some problems.  But, he argues, “the real answer is for the thirty nine states that still elect judges in contested elections to adopt merit systems like Colorado’s.”

We agree and hope Pennsylvanians will be given the opportunity to decide whether to change the current judicial election system and adopt Merit Selection for the appellate courts.

Thorburn summarizes the problems with judicial elections, including campaign contributions that create the appearance of bias and bitter, negative campaigns that sour the reputations of otherwise competent jurists. He then describes how Colorado’s Merit Selection system works to correct these problems, and how it provides Colorado with qualified, impartial judges.

Colorado, Thorburn concludes, “should be grateful for a vetting of judges based upon merit from the outset.” We agree with this assessment, and we hope that we’ll soon be able to say the same thing about Pennsylvania’s appellate judges.