judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in the Reading Eagle urges that it’s time to give Pennsylvanians the opportunity to vote on Merit Selection.   In a review of the report The New Politics of Judicial Selection, the editorial opens with these key points:

The Issue: A study reveals what we already knew: Judicial elections are becoming more expensive.

Our Opinion: It is time to switch to merit selection of Pennsylvania’s appellate court judges.

The editorial cites the rising costs of judicial elections and the increasing participation of special interests in those campaigns.  It agrees with the Professor James Sample (lead author of the New Politics report) that “‘We’re sort of playing with fire when you’re putting this much money into our courts.”

The editorial then reviews the pending Merit Selection legislation and notes that Governor Rendell and former Governors Ridge, Thornburgh and Schweiker recently joined together to support implementing Merit Selection for Pennsylvania’s appellate court judges.  The closing paragraphs are worth quoting in full:

According to a survey conducted by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, 63 percent of the people in the commonwealth supported replacing the current system of electing judges, and 93 percent favored putting the issue to a statewide vote.

Nevertheless, the Legislature has been reluctant to even consider a change, which would take at least two years to implement because it would require a change in the state Constitution.

Why are the 253 members of the Legislature blocking the will of the people?

Despite growing support in the legislature and the dedication of our legislative sponsors, the Merit Selection legislation has not yet reached the floor of either House. We agree with the Reading Eagle that Pennsylvanians shouldn’t have to wait any more.

Yesterday’s call by Governor Rendell for the legislature to pass the pending Merit Selection bills has got Pennsylvania talking.  An editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News shares the Governor’s sense of urgency to pass the legislation and argues: “Imagine if judges didn’t have to rely on the kindness of ward leaders, or the luck of ballot position.”

In addition, the Philadelphia Inquirer has a full report on the news conference and quotes the Governor’s exclamation that there is “no excuse for not moving the legislation this year and putting the question on the ballot by late 2011.” The Inquirer also quoted PMC Executive Director Lynn Marks who explained that Merit Selection is designed to get the most qualified, fair and independent people on the appellate courts.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette notes that the Governor is seeking to give a jumpstart to the Merit Selection legislation.  The article quotes local State Senator Jim Ferlo on the need for reform: “The impact of the electoral system on the impartiality of judges puts the fairness of our courts in question, and now requires judicial candidates … to raise millions of dollars to run their campaigns.”

Additional coverage of the Governor’s press conference and the call for action can be found at WHYY 91 FM, the Citizens’ Voice, the Times Leader, the Patriot-News, and Gavel Grab.

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.

On Monday, the Courts Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the pending Merit Selection legislation.  Representative Josh Shapiro (D, Montgomery) chaired the hearing in Subcommittee Chair Don Walko’s (D, Allegheny) absence. Also attending were Minority Subcommittee Chair Tom Creighton (R, Lancaster), bill sponsor Matt Smith (D, Allegheny), Mike Vereb (R, Montgomery), Joseph Petrarca (D, Armstrong), Kathy Manderino (D, Philadelphia and Montgomery), Kate Harper (R, Montgomery), Glen Grell (R, Cumberland) and Deberah Kula (D, Fayette and Westmoreland).

The hearing was very informative.  Nearly all who testified — both those who supported the legislation and those who opposed it in some way — agreed that there are problems with the current electoral system, notably the role of money in the process.  This consensus is significant and reflects the public’s belief in the corrupting influence of money in the process.

Testifying on behalf of the legislation were PMC and PMCAction’s Bob Heim, Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman; Dave Taylor of the Pennsylvania Manufacturer’s Association; and Charlotte Glauser of the League of Women Voters of PA.  J. Whyatt Mondesire of the NAACP was scheduled to present testimony in support of Merit Selection but was unable to attend.

In the next few days, we will upload copies of the testimony presented at the hearing, but we offer a few highlights.  Bob Heim, Chair of PMC, focused on the need for reform and the importance of getting judges out of the fundraising business. He highlighted the public’s growing concern that money can influence judicial decisionmaking and called on the legislature to allow Pennsylvanians to decide whether to change the way we select appellate court judges.

Charlotte Glauser of the League of Women Voters of PA explained the League’s long standing support for Merit Selection, urging “Passage of these bills will do much to restore the public image of independence of Pennsylvania’s appellate court system.”

PMA’s Dave Taylor explained that Merit Selection would “improve the professionalism, integrity, and independence of the judicial branch of goverment.” Taylor explained:

By combining elements of elective and appointive systems for nominating our appellate court judges, Pennsylvania can uphold the professionalism of the courts and protect our jurists from the conflicts of interest that inevitably arise from political fundraising and campaigning.

Testifying in opposition were Tom Foley III of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice (formerly the Pennsylvania Association of Trial Lawyers), Professor Michael Dimino of Widener University, and Rick Bloomingdale, Secretary Treasuer of the AFL-CIO.  Professor Dimino actually endorsed a Merit Selection for the Superior and Commonwealth Courts and even for the trial level courts, but argued against Merit Selection for the Supreme Court.

Rick Bloomingdale of the AFL-CIO noted the organization’s current opposition to the legislation, but expressed a willingness to support an amended version of a Merit Selection plan. This is significant, and we are hopeful that as the Committee considers the bill, we can work with our traditional partners and with groups such as the AFL-CIO to design the best system of judicial selection for the Pennsylvania appellate courts.

In a publicly released letter to bill sponsor Matt Smith, Governor Rendell again expressed his strong support for Merit Selection:

I have said on many occasions that our system of electing appellate judges makes no sense. It is no secret that there is great concern in Pennsylvania about the role of money in judicial elections. Current law could allow judicial candidates to accept indirect contributions from lawyers and special interest groups that may eventually have to argue a case before that judicial candidate. It is no wonder that Pennsylvanians have been losing faith in our courts and our judges.

PMC and PMCAction are grateful to the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Courts for the opportunity to present public testimony at yesterday’s hearing. We thank the bill sponsors, Representatives Smith and Will Gabig (R, Cumberland), for their leadership as well as all the representatives who attended the hearing.  We look forward to working together to achieve a better way for Pennsylvanians to select appellate court judges.

Late last week, Governor Rendell nominated a new slate to fill interim vacancies on Pennsylvania’s appellate courts. From early reports, it seems likely that the new slate — Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan for the Supreme Court, Northampton County President Judge Robert A. Freedberg and McKean County President Judge John M. Cleland for Superior Court, and Philadelphia lawyer Johnny J. Butler for Comonwealth Court — will be confirmed in the near future. This follows months of political wrangling and the Senate’s rejection of the Governor’s first slate of nominees.

PMC/PMCAction Executive Director Lynn Marks warns: “This interim appointment process should not be confused with what is known as a merit selection system just because both require nomination by the Governor and Senate confirmation. . . . They are both very different and the jockeying we have seen for the last few months is another example of why we should change the way we appoint appellate judges.”

Now that the Pennsylvania Senate has officially rejected Governor Rendell’s nominations to fill four vacant appellate judgeships, calls are coming for increased diversity among the judges on the appellate bench. Senate Republicans cited lack of diversity in the nominees as one reason why they rejected the slate. The Black Legislative Caucus is calling on the Governor to nominate Black and Latino candidates to fill the seats.

Supporters of Merit Selection are keenly aware of the lack of diversity on the appellate courts in Pennsylvania. Of 31 judges on the three statewide courts, only two are judges of color (one on Superior Court and one on Commonwealth Court). No minorities sit on the Supreme Court. Only one African American has ever been elected to the Supreme Court, and there have been no justices or appellate judges of Hispanic or Asian descent.

In addition, historically most appellate judges have come from the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas. This stems in large part from the difficulty in running a statewide campaign and the need for broad support from big population centers. Although county of residence is essentially irrelevant to one’s qualifications to serve as an appellate judge, it has been an important predictor of electoral success.

A diverse judiciary is good for the state, and it’s good for justice. Pennsylvanians can feel confident that their viewpoints will be fairly considered when the judiciary includes judges who come from diverse backgrounds and different parts of the Commonwealth and who bring many different experiences to the bench. Merit Selection — which offers pathways to the appellate bench for qualified jurists from a variety of areas and backgrounds — can help Pennsylvania achieve this.

When there’s an interim or midterm vacancy on any court in Pennsylvania, it is filled by the Governor making a nomination that is subject to Senate confirmation. Usually for appellate seats, the nominee agrees not to run in the next judicial election for a full term on the court and, therefore, sits on the bench for a short period of time.

This is because the interim appointment process is actually part of the electoral system and is designed to keep either political party from gaining too great an advantage in the next election. Thus, good candidates must promise not to run in the future, lest they get an unfair advantage of running while already a member of an appellate court.

There currently are four vacancies on the appellate courts — 2 on the Supreme Court and one each on the Superior and Commonwealth Courts. This week, the Governor’s nominees for those vacancies were all rejected by the Senate.

According to news reports, the Governor and Senate leaders met to discuss possible candidates for the vacancies, but the ultimate slate of nominees did not include individuals favored by the Senate leadership. As a result, after several months, the Senate voted all four nominees down, without even holding hearings.

So, we’re still left with four vacancies on the appellate courts, and the vacancy on the Supreme Court has the added problem of leaving a six member court that could result in 3-3 decisions. By the time the politicians meet again, new nominations are made, hearings are held and votes are taken, the new judges might have less than a year to serve.

If we had a Merit Selection system in place, these vacancies would be filled through the process involving screening by an independent citizens nominating commission, nomination by the Governor, and confirmation by the Senate. After four years on the bench, the judges would stand before the public in a retention election. Good judges would have the opportunity to stay on the bench for a full ten-year term. Judges the public is dissatisfied with would be removed, and the process would begin again to fill the vacancies.

Merit Selection is designed to get the most qualified judges on the bench in an expedient manner. It’s not designed to position political parties for upcoming elections. That’s why Merit Selection works.

In an editorial addressing Governor Rendell’s stalled interim judicial appointments, Scranton’s Times-Tribune points out that judicial elections make it difficult for qualified candidates from many areas of Pennsylvania to reach the appellate bench.

Due to simple electoral math, it is very difficult for any candidate who is not from the Philadelphia area or Allegheny County to be elected to the appellate courts. Diversification of the appellate courts is one of the reasons that the state should switch to a system of merit selection.

Diversity on the bench, including geographic, racial, ethnic, gender and professional diversity, is one of many important characteristics of a fair and impartial justice system. It’s something that’s elections have not produced on Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

We agree with the Times-Tribune that it’s time for Pennsylvania’s legislators to “get the ball rolling on merit selection.”

In a letter to the editor published in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCA Executive Director Lynn Marks explains how Merit Selection of appellate judges differs from the interim judicial appointments currently stalled in the state Senate.

Opponents of Merit Selection like to argue that the struggle over Governor Rendell’s nominations somehow makes Merit Selection impractical or unworkable. In reality, the two systems are very different, and problems with the interim appointment process don’t undermine the value of Merit Selection.