Jul 20 2010
An Unlikely Model for Judicial Selection Reform
In an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Drew F. Cohen argues that Pennsylvania must change the way we pick judges, and he offers an unlikely model: Iraq. Cohen points to the issues that concerned the U.S. State Department when helping to form the Iraqi judiciary: “corruption and nepotism, but also competence and legitimacy – the same issues raised in the debate over judicial elections in Pennsylvania.”
We need not look so far away for a better judicial selection model. Many states have been using Merit Selection for years to ensure a fair, qualified, impartial judiciary. But Cohen’s comparison is certainly interesting. In Iraq the High Judicial Council, an independent body, vets and appoints potential judges. Once selected, the justices get a one-year probationary period. If they pass a comprehensive performance review at the end of that year, they can be confirmed until the mandatory retirement age of 63. Cohen compares this to the Merit Selection legislation pending in Harrisburg: A 14-member citizens nominating commission would evaluate candidates and recommend the most highly qualified to the governor. The governor would nominate from this list, and the nominee would be subject to Senate confirmation. If confirmed, the judge would serve a four-year term before standing for retention where Pennsylvanians would vote on whether the judge should serve a ten-year term.
Cohen notes that electing judges — and modern judicial elections in particular — don’t fit with our ideals of what courts and judges should be:
When the Declaration of Independence was signed on Chestnut Street, no state had seriously contemplated popular judicial elections. . . . Modern judicial elections are a far cry from the unbiased, dispassionate races originally envisioned by their supporters. Pennsylvanians are exposed to judicial campaigns replete with vitriolic attack ads, parasitic special-interest groups, and seven-figure fund-raising efforts, tarnishing the robes ultimately donned by the victors.
It seems Iraq has realized the special role judges play in a democracy: judges must be faithful to the law, not to any particular constituency or campaign supporter. People must be confident that when they come to the courts for justice, the judges will be fair and impartial.
Cohen closes with this call to action: “With Iraq’s judiciary leaving Pennsylvania’s in the rubble of yesteryear, it’s time for Harrisburg to make merit selection a reality.”

