judgesonmerit.org

Tuesday’s primary election included a number of judicial races. In terms of statewide seats, there were openings on the Superior and Commonwealth Courts. For the Superior Court seat, Harrisburg lawyer Vic Stabile won the GOP primary. In the general election he will face Allegheny Judge David Wecht, who ran unopposed in the Democratic primary. New Hope lawyer Anne Covey won the GOP primary for the open seat on the Commonwealth Court, but her opponent has not yet been determined. The Democratic primary is still too close to call, featuring Doylestown lawyer Kathryn Boockvar and Pittsburgh lawyer Barbara Behrend Ernsberger. Boockvar is the candidate backed by the party, and she received a rating of “Recommended” from the PA Bar Association. The PA Bar Association rated Ernsberger “Not Recommended.”

Locally, there are ten seats open on the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. Only eight candidates ran on the Republican ticket, so they all receive spots in the general election. They are – Jim Divergilis, Fran Shields, Ted J. Vigilante, Anne Marie B. Coyle, Maria McLaughlin, Kenneth J. Powell Jr., Sayde J. Ladov, and Charles Ehrlich. Of those, only Shields did not also run on the Democratic ticket. The ten leading vote getters in the Democratic party were Sean Kennedy, Jonathan Q. Irvine, Angelo J. Foglietta, Maria McLaughlin, Diana Anhalt, Vincent L. Johnson, Barbara M. McDermott, Carolyn H. Nichols, Edward C. Wright, and Charles Erlich. Seven of these ten were endorsed by the Democratic City Committee. In the Municipal Court primary, Democratic City Committee backed Marvin Williams won. There was no Republican candidate for Municipal Court judge.

Many other local judicial races took place across the state.

Recently, an AP article looked at various positions at stake in Tuesday’s primary election, making note of difference in candidates, issues, endorsements, and money that has been raised. Sadly, political issues are playing an ever growing role in judicial elections. An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer explains that this is due in part to a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that relaxed restrictions on what judicial candidates can talk about.

The change in these restrictions is apparent from judicial candidate Paul Panepinto’s campaign website, which announces that he is Roman Catholic and “pro life.” Panepinto, currently a Philadelphia Common Pleas judge, is running for an open seat on the Commonwealth Court. PMC’s executive director Lynn Marks explains that the statement “does not cross the line of what a candidate can and can’t do, but it does send a message.”

Issue voting is a problem in judicial elections because it makes our choice in judges too similar to how we choose politicians. The judiciary is different from the other branches of government, and the way we choose judges should likewise be different. Pennsylvania deserves a fair and impartial judiciary with judges selected based on their qualifications and experience. Judicial elections allow money and politics to play too great a role in the process. It’s time to get judges out of the business of campaigning, and Merit Selection is the best way to accomplish that.

At a February 12th meeting in Harrisburg, Republican State Committee members endorsed candidates for open seats on two statewide appellate court.  Bucks County lawyer Anne Covey was the GOP committee’s choice for an opening on the Commonwealth Court; former Cumberland County Republican Committee Chairman Vic Stabile received an endorsement for a seat on the Superior Court. Both candidates were rated as “Recommended” by the Judicial Evaluation Commission of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Philadelphia County Judges Paula Patrick and Paul Panepinto were also nominated for the open Superior Court seat, but neither candidate was able to garner enough support to win the party endorsement. Both judges indicated that they planned to stay on the ballot.

Current Judge Johnny Butler, who was appointed to the Commonwealth Court by Governor Ed Rendell, has told party leaders that he won’t run in the primary.

The endorsements came a week after the Democratic State Committee announced its judicial endorsements.

2009 is a judicial election year in Pennsylvania.  It will be a busy one here, as Pennsylvanians will be electing a Supreme Court Justice, three Superior Court judges, two Commonwealth Court judges, and many more trial level judges.

We’ll be watching and keeping track of the money, and waiting to see if the United States Supreme Court changes the rules of the game  as it considers and decides Caperton v. Massey. We’re anticipating that 2009 will break the fundraising records set in 2007, when four candidates for the Supreme Court raised almost eight million dollars.

As this all proceeds, we will continue to work to bring Merit Selection to the appellate courts, and hope that some time in the near future there will be an election that gives the people of Pennsylvania the chance to vote on whether to change the way we choose our appellate court judges.

Yesterday’s Metro featured an article about the effort to bring Merit Selection to Pennsylvania. While the article identified some of the problems of judicial elections and some of the benefits of Merit Selection, it mistakenly implied that the current Merit Selection legislation would affect all courts in Pennsylvania. The fact is, we are working for Merit Selection of the three statewide appellate courts only.

There are three appellate courts in Pennsylvania — the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts. There are 31 appellate judges, out of a total of 1,048 judges in Pennsylvania.

The problems with judicial elections — the lack of emphasis on candidates’ qualifications, the huge sums of money raised from parties likely to appear before the judges in the future, and the lack of opportunities for qualified candidates of all backgrounds — are more pronounced at the level of the appellate courts.

As a result, the current reform effort is focused on changing the way we select this part of the judiciary. The trial courts, including the Courts of Common Pleas, Municipal Courts, Magisterial District Judge Courts, and Traffic Courts, would not be affected.