Forty-one percent of respondents to a massively unscientific Capitol Ideas poll cited party affiliation as their reason for voting in the Supreme Court race, while 23 percent cited their records. Interestingly, an equal number credited what they read in the press and on the Web for swaying their decisions.

Party affiliation was the big explainer.  We’ve always known that voters turn to a few key factors in low turn-out elections where relevant information about the candidates is hard to get.  This admittedly unscientific poll confirms the role of party affiliation in voter decision-making.

The thing is, party affiliation really tells us nothing about whether someone is qualified to serve on the bench or will make a good judge or justice.  So, we’re relying on party politics to decide who will serve in what is supposed to be the apolitical, impartial branch of government.

There’s a better way to make these decisions.  Merit Selection of appellate court judges is the best way to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the bench.

Here at Capitol Ideas World HQ, we make up our mind on these races the same way that we imagine most of the Pennsylvania populace does: by furiously perusing the voters’ guide in our local newspaper. And then, moments before we enter the polls, we hastily pick some candidates, pray that they’re qualified, cast our ballots and leave hoping that we haven’t done too much long-term damage to the Republic.

This naturally leads us to the conclusion that there must be some better way to run a railroad — particularly when it comes to choosing crucially important appellate judgeships.

Being an accredited member of the Fourth Estate gives us a bit more insight into judicial candidates than most. But we still can’t help but feel like we’re holding our breath a bit when we enter the voting booth.

And if we feel this way, we have to imagine that many Pennsylvanians feel equally bewildered. And this, of course, leads us to wonder (particularly after the pugilistic state Supreme Court campaign we’ve just witnessed) whether electing judges is such a good idea.

We believe Micek is correct that his hesitation in the voting booth (and his worry about his choices after he leaves the voting booth) are widely shared.  Voting for appellate court judges doesn’t make sense.  There is a better way, a way that focuses on candidates’ qualifications to serve on the bench, eliminates the influence of random factors like ballot position, gender, party affiliation and county of residence, and gets judges out of the fundraising business. That way is Merit Selection.

According to John Micek over at Capitol Ideas, Supreme Court candidate Joan Orie Melvin made this a topic of her address to the Press Club today.  She complained about the $1 million contributed to the campaign of her opponent Jack Panella by the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers’ PAC, the Committee for a Better Tomorrow. When asked about the $125,000 she also accepted from the PAC, she “claimed there was no comparison between the money she accepted from the trial bar and the money her competitor received.”

But Orie Melvin’s initial characterization of the contributions to her opponent offers a more convincing take on the perception contributions to judicial elections create: “”It’s pay-to-play, it’s justice for sale.’” This is surely what the public sees when the money is discussed, and it doesn’t matter how much is at issue.  It’s the fact of the contribution that makes an impression on the public.

Micek concludes his post with a discussion with PMC’s Shira Goodman:

What matters. . . is the public perception that money buys access to courtrooms – period.

“In our mind, enough is enough already,” she said.

We’ve always tried to make the point that judges are different from other public officials. As such, they should be selected differently. The way it stands now, we treat judicial candidates pretty much like other candidates.  Doing so makes it harder for the public — and even the judges themselves — to recognize the special role judges play in our system of government.  The more we blur the lines before judges reach the bench, the more blurred the lines stay.  Putting on the robe can’t be a single magic moment.  The entire process of becoming a judge should speak to the special nature of the judicial function.  Money is poison.

Micek notes that the lack of information available to voters in judicial elections — due to constraints on judicial candidate speech as well as limited coverage of judicial races in the media — creates a situation where results are driven by factors unrelated to qualifications to serve on the bench and voter turn-out is low:

Critics say that combination of factors has made the races the exclusive province of three constituencies: political party insiders, lawyers, and the big business interests who often find themselves in the courtroom.

So instead of the voters picking judicial candidates based on their temperament, experience and qualifications, external factors such as geography, gender and party endorsements can often carry the day.

Tim Potts, leader of Democracy Rising Pa, argues that we need judicial selection reform:

“There’s no question we need to change. The only question is whether it’s going to be to something that’s equally as awful or to the highest quality we can get. . . . We need to have a real discussion and that hasn’t happened for years.”

Merit Selection offers a good solution to the problems Micek identifies.  It focuses on qualifications, reduces or eliminates the role of factors like ballot position, name recognition, political party support and campaigning skill, and gets judges out of the fundraising business.

It’s time for Pennsylvania to tackle the serious issue of how we select appellate court judges.  This requires a great deal of attention and commitment on the part of our leaders and citizens. We hope Pennsylvanians are ready to begin the work needed to address this issue.

This is just the sort of case that judicial reformers in PA warn about when they make their arguments for scrapping the current electoral system and replacing it with what’s known as “merit selection,” in which an impartial commission recommends judicial candidates to the governor.

Micek is correct that reformers like PMC are very concerned about the Caperton case.  In fact, he quotes PMC Executive Director Lynn Marks about the increasing costs of elections and the growing public concern about the influence of campaign contributions on judicial decision-making.  In short, we think it’s time to get judges out of the fundraising business. Merit Selection will accomplish that.