judgesonmerit.org

Governor Rendell just finished delivering his 2010-2011 budget address before the Pennsylvania General Assembly. In discussing his reform priorities, the Governor said:

[O]ur courts are faced with a serious credibility crisis. After all that has recently occurred, the time has clearly come to move a merit selection amendment through both chambers because it will have widespread public support and because it’s the right thing to do. These are important steps forward on the road to reform. Let’s enact the laws that restrict the ability of special interests to unduly impact our policies and manipulate our process. Let’s put Pennsylvanians first.

We hope the members of the House and Senate recognize that the time is NOW. We are in the wake of the very recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC which will undoubtedly give special interests even more ability to ensure their preferred judges are elected.

It is time to put Pennsylvanians first, as the Governor said, and select judges in a non-partisan, merit-based manner rather than in the expensive partisan elections we currently have which virtually ensure that judges hear cases from parties that have contributed to them directly.

An editorial in the Austin American-Statesman minces no words in pointing out a major problem caused by electing judges:

Elections mean money. Money means problems. Elections and money and judges mean, at the least, a damaging perception of big problems. . . .

[The campaign contributions involved in Caperton] seem[ed] like a prudent investment. But we don’t think judicial races should attract investments. The American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, cited in the U.S. Supreme Court opinion, says “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”

How do you do that when you have to raise money. . . to run for judge in Texas?

This is a good question, and it’s one we all should be asking in Pennsylvania.  Of course, the answer to that question raises another pressing question:  if the electoral process is itself undermining public confidence in the courts and the judiciary, what can we do about it?

The editorial notes that there is something we can do:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling does not force Texas to do anything about picking judges. But it’s another reminder that the system warrants review.

“It will be on litigants’ minds,” former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Phillips said of the decision. “They’ll ask their lawyer, ‘Did the other side give money to the judge? I read in the paper you can do something about that.’ ”

And now you’re reading in the paper that there is something we all should do about that. Texas’ judicial selection system should be changed.

Voters in Pennsylvania can do something, too.  Legislation has been introduced to change the state constitution to implement Merit Selection for the appellate courts. This would get appellate court judges out of the fundraising business.  We can only amend the constitution if the legislature twice passes the amendment and the public votes for it.  So, there is something we can do.  Let’s do it.

The Press-Enterprise in California is reporting on a hearing in Nevada on a proposal to replace judicial elections with a Merit Selection system. In some colorful testimony, Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio quoted former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeiffer’s complaints about judicial elections:

“I never felt so much like a hooker down by the bus station in any race I’ve ever been in as I did in a judicial race. Everyone interested in contribution had very specific interests. They mean to be buying a vote.”

While the metaphor may be unusual, it strikes at the heart of the problematic role of money in the judicial election process.

The bill at issue passed the Nevada legislature in 2007. If it passes a second time, it can go before the people of Nevada in a referendum to amend the constitution. This lengthy process is very much like the process for amending the Pennsylvania constitution. We hope the people of Nevada and Pennsylvania will get the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to change the way judges are selected.

We frequently acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree about the best way to select appellate court judges.  We believe it’s time to have a full, open dialogue in Pennsylvania about whether we should change how we pick our appellate judges.  We want that to include a public referendum on the question.  And that’s why we’re working within the constitutional amendment process to pursue the reform we believe is needed.

We understand that people have strong opinions about these issues.  And we welcome impassioned debate.  But we’re tired of opponents of Merit Selection attacking us and the Merit Selection process on false premises.  It happened again yesterday.  American Courthouse accused us of wanting to change to Merit Selection so we can get a certain kind of judge on the bench.  That’s simply not true.

We have never criticized or praised any judge for his or her judicial philosophy or decisions.  We have never advocated the election or defeat of any judicial candidate.  We have always focused on the problems with the electoral system — the skyrocketing campaign contributions from lawyers, law firms and organizations that litigate in the state courts, the lack of required qualifications to serve on the appellate courts, the lack of diversity on our appellate courts, the influence of random factors like ballot position affecting election outcomes, and voters’ inability to access relevant information about the candidates.  These are the reasons we want to change the way we pick our appellate court judges.

So, disagree with us if you must, but get our position right when you do.

In an editorial in today’s Patriot-News, we make the case for Merit Selection of appellate court judges: Merit Selection “gets appellate judges out of the fundraising business and emphasizes qualifications. It opens pathways to the bench for qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds. This should give Pennsylvanians more confidence in the ability, fairness and impartiality of appellate courts.”

We explain the lengthy constitutional amendment process, which culminates in a public referendum. We emphasize that only the people of Pennsylvania can decide — by voting in a referendum — to change the way we pick appellate court judges.

The editorial closes with an appeal to get this issue before the people: “It’s time to let Pennsylvanians decide whether expensive, partisan elections are the best way to pick appellate court judges. Legislators should be encouraged to pass this proposed constitutional amendment and put merit selection on the ballot so that we — the voters of Pennsylvania — can decide for ourselves how to choose appellate court judges.”