judgesonmerit.org

A recent editorial in the Daily Journal (Tupelo) explains that an independent judiciary should not have to campaign for contributions.  Although the candidates for the Mississippi State Court election are all “honorable members of the

legal profession,” the fact that they have to raise money for their

campaign is unsettling.  The amount of money that candidates raise is substantial; one candidate in the Central District has raised $375,000.  His opponent has raised $290,000.

Some of this money comes from friends and colleagues expecting nothing more than an impartial judge; however, interest groups also contribute to judicial election campaigns.   The problem with these contributions is that judges are supposed to be impartial, judging by the law, not by whether a specific interest group will donate to their campaign next time.  Also, “[n]o interest group contributes to any candidate without some expectation that the candidate will represent its interests.”

Although upstanding judges will not decide cases based on interest group contributions, why have a system where interest groups might have a say? Even the appearance of special interest groups contributing to judicial elections should be avoided because it causes a lack of public confidence.

Under a merit selection system judges are not forced to campaign.  Further, judges would not be pressured by special interest groups who contribute to campaigns with hopes of the law being decided in their favor.  An impartial judge should be selected on merit, not on how much money one can raise.

Wednesday’s primary election in Washington state is further evidence that where voters have little or no information about one or both of the candidates running for office, they may rely on other factors — such as the way a candidate’s name sounds or what they assume the name implies about a candidate’s race, ethnicity, or background — to make decisions.  Those other factors typically have no relevance to a candidate’s qualifications for the bench.

As the Associated Press reports, little-known Seattle area lawyer, Bruce Danielson collected over 40% of the vote in the primary despite the fact that he did not raise money, did not campaign, had no endorsements and attended no candidate forums. In contrast, his opponent, Washington Supreme Court Justice Steve Gonzales, who was ultimately victorious in cheap cialis online the primary, engaged in a traditional campaign.

Mr. Danielson’s performance has raised eyebrows among election watchers. University of Washington professor Matt Barreto has hypothesized that one reason for Mr. Danielson’s success was his name. “When voters find themselves with very limited information, that’s when names and race absolutely factor in,” Barreto said. “They’ll try to infer positions about the candidates by their names, and they’ll misapply stereotypes to the candidates.”

Judicial elections are broken. Judges should be selected based on qualifications, not their last name or ballot position. Merit Selection provides the public with meaningful opportunities for input while ensuring that the judges who ultimately take the bench are qualified.

Election season brings campaign mishaps, and judicial elections are no exception. Recently, three judges, two from Ohio and one from Texas, have been accused of violating campaign laws.

Ohio Common Pleas Court candidate, Judge Kathryn Michael, was fined for accepting an improper campaign donation from her ex-husband and for improper wording on her campaign material. The Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline conducted a

hearing and concluded “by clear and convincing evidence” that the judge had violated the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. Michael had previously repaid the $25,000 contribution from her ex-husband and corrected her misleading campaign materials. As part of the Board’s ruling, she was required to pay $2,500 in attorney fees and court costs associated with the disciplinary complaint.

According to the Texas Tribune, Texas Supreme Court elections are already becoming heated.  Former district court judge, John Devine is running against eight-year incumbent Justice David Medina in a Republican runoff election.

John Devine has taken a grass roots approach to the election.  Justice David Medina has the support of Republican elected officials, and he has traveled

the state introducing himself to voters.

Both candidates have had their fair share of controversies.  In 2008, Justice Medina was indicted in an arson case causing $1 million in damages to his home.  Charges against Justice Medina were dropped.  “Afterward the Harris County grand jury’s foreman said the dismissal of the charges had been politically motivated.”  In 1997, Devine was sanctioned by the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct for “using court chambers to announce his run for Congress.”  He has also struggled to keep the 10 Commandments in his courtroom and is an anti-abortion activist.  “At a June rally in Fort Worth, Mr. Devine told the crowd he had been arrested 37 times while protesting abortion clinics. . . . His activism on behalf of anti-abortion causes raised concerns when it appeared likely that he would hear cases related to abortion laws.”

According to the Statesman, one recent controversy between the two involves Devine’s motivations for running against Justice Medina.  Scott Link, a former district judge, and Frank Harmon, an attorney, claim that Devine targeted Medina because “‘he had a Mexican name’ and was therefore vulnerable in a GOP primary.”  Devine claims these statements are untrue and dishonest.  The Statesman reported that Devine thinks this is an attempt to distract the public from Justice Medina’s 2002 driving while intoxicated charges, “his trial ended in a hung jury — and a $35,000 Texas Ethics Commission fine for improperly spending campaign money on personal travel.”

The Republican primary runoff election is scheduled for July 31, 2012.  As the date nears, how much more time and money will be spent pointing fingers?  Is this how we should be choosing our judges?

A column in the Holland Sentinel opines about the state of Michigan courts. Four years ago, Michigan was ranked last in a grading of the nation’s supreme courts conducted by the University of Chicago Law School. Michigan’s ranking was partly a reflection of its lack of judicial independence.

In response to the court’s poor perception, a Michigan Judicial Selection Task Force was created. The bipartisan task force was made up of more than 20 respected residents of the state and set out to identify the problems plaguing Michigan’s judicial system and solutions to address those issues. The group’s report is out now, and the results are striking.

The task force discovered that judicial elections in the state are expensive, secretive, tinged with favoritism, and susceptible to partisan politics. The group ultimately reached two unanimous recommendations: 1. Judicial elections should be open and non-partisan, and 2. All judicial campaign contributions should be publicly reported.

While these recommendations will help improve the election process, some of the task force members felt that further action was needed and favored switching from judicial elections to a Merit Selection system. Changing to a system where a screening commission would vet candidate qualifications for gubernatorial appointments that are subject to the approval of the legislature requires that the Michigan constitution be amended.

The column concludes with disappointment at the fact that the task force’s recommendations haven’t been seriously considered by leaders in the state. Nevertheless, these suggestions have brought the need for reform to the forefront.

Because the Commonwealth also uses partisan judicial elections to choose our judges, Pennsylvania’s judicial system is susceptible to the same troubles that afflict Michigan’s courts. Like Michigan, proponents of judicial selection reform have suggested amending the Pennsylvania constitution to switch to a Merit Selection system. Like Michigan, Pennsylvanians are hopeful that our legislative leaders will “be willing to do something to benefit our entire state.”

An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer examines the efforts to implement a Merit Selection system in Pennsylvania.  The article highlights Justice Orie Melvin’s indictment for allegedly using her state funded staff and resources for her election campaigns and notes that this is not the first time that one of Pennsylvania’s state judges has been in trouble.

But beyond the scandals, Pennsylvania’s current judicial election system creates other big problems.  Discussing one of the biggest, former Dean of Temple University, Beasley School of Law, Professor Robert Reinstein stated,

To run, you have to be willing to raise enormous amounts of money. To think that you can have this system with all this money floating around without compromising judicial independence is equivalent to believing in the Easter Bunny.”

Why in the wake of such problems did the House Judiciary Committee decide 13-12 to table the Merit Selection bill? The article explains that trial lawyers, anti-abortion activists and others oppose Merit Selection.

A pivotal development occurred June 1, when the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, an anti-abortion group, informed members of the House Judiciary Committee that it opposed the measure and would weigh members’ votes when making endorsements in the next election.”

Committee chairman Ron Marsico (R., Dauphin) who initially “believed he had enough votes to release the bill from committee, said the e-mail swayed several committee members to vote to table the measure.”

This Bill would have given voters the opportunity to decide in a referendum whether to adopt a Merit Selection System for the appellate courts.  Lynn Marks, executive director at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts observed,

‘The part that is ironic is that it is the groups that say we need to elect judges who are saying don’t vote for this legislation.’ She added that those opponents are taking a very hard to defend position and are basically saying ‘we don’t want the people to have the right to change their constitution.’”

A San Antonio Express-News article explains just how frequently lawyers contribute to judicial election campaigns.  Picture this: a group of probate attorneys gathering together in order to discuss the re-election of a probate judge while drinking scotch and beer.  The probate judge, Tom Rickhoff, stops by with a list of attorneys who could potentially contribute money to his re-election campaign.

Attorney Mark Stanton Smith was present at the re-election meeting, which led his opposing counsel in a guardianship case to request the recusal of Judge Rickhoff. Judge Rickhoff refused to recuse himself, leading to an appeal decided by Judge Peeples.

Smith explained that he and Judge Rickhoff were not close friends, but conceded that he had contributed money to Rickhoff’s re-election. “‘It’s a typical thing that I do to the judges that are in the courts.’” Smith admitted there had been similar meetings in 2010 and in 2006.  “The attorneys had agreed to call about 20 people each and solicit cash for the judge’s re-election.”

Judge David Peeples ruled that this was not unusual enough to require Judge Rickhoff to recuse.  However, he also noted the broader issue at stake. “‘If you are correct,’ Judge Peeples said, ‘potentially, wouldn’t (this affect) every judge in cases involving lawyers that help them significantly in their campaigns, more than just contributing money, contributing a big sum of money, work for them, send out letters, work the poll for a morning on election day, put out the yard signs, all these judges that got some of these lawyers in their court?’”

The column’s author, Brian Chasnoff, explained that this was not a denial of such contribution activity, rather it was an acknowledgement of the rampant contributions from attorneys to judges’ election campaigns. “It’s also another reason that Texas needs to find a new way to pick judges.”

Today’s Pittsburgh Post Gazette editorial blasts the House Judiciary Committee for failing to advance Merit Selection legislation even as a sitting Supreme Court Justice has been indicted for alleged illegal campaign activity. “[T]he occasion has never been riper to get politics out of judicial elections. The headlines on Justice Joan Orie Melvin being charged with using her staff to do campaign work on state time surely wouldn’t be written if a merit selection process were used.”

Despite the current scandal, the House Judiciary Committee voted 13-12 to table House Bill 1815 instead of moving forward with the constitutional amendment process that would give voters the opportunity to decide for themselves whether there is a better way to choose appellate judges.

A 2010 poll of PA voters revealed that 93% want the opportunity to vote on whether we should change the way we select judges. It is unfortunate that the legislature has not yet given the people this opportunity.  The editorial’s conclusion about this failure is telling:  “What an irony: Lawmakers who want the people to keep voting for judges don’t want the people to have the chance to decide whether they want to keep voting for judges.”

PMC and PMCAction are disappointed to report that the House Judiciary Committee today tabled Merit Selection (H.B. 1815) on a 13-12 vote.  Instead of moving forward a bill that would give Pennsylvanians the opportunity to decide for themselves whether there is a better way to choose appellate judges, the Committee responded to pressure by special interest groups that would prefer not to let the people decide this issue.   Such groups clearly believe their best prospects lie in electing judges that agree with them and fear the results of a system that takes judges out of the campaign and fundraising businesses.

A 2010 pollof Pennsylvania voters revealed that 93% want the chance to vote on whether to adopt Merit Selection.  (A summary of the poll is available).  A positive vote in Committee would have moved us one step closer to letting the people vote.

It has been more than forty years since the public voted on this issue. Much has changed since then:  elections have become incredibly expensive, special interests (including some out-of-state organizations) are funding judicial campaigns, and a sitting Supreme Court justice has been indicted for alleged improper campaign activity.

It is past time for the people to be heard.  We will continue to work to bring this issue to the people so they can decide whether there is a better way.  We trust the voters to make this decision; it is unfortunate that others do not.

In an op-ed in the Harrisburg Patriot-News, PMC today calls for the state legislature to begin the process of giving the people of Pennsylvania the opportunity to decide whether there is a better way to select appellate court judges. The editorial notes the recent scandals that have rocked our state courts, including the indictment of a sitting Supreme Court justice for illegal campaign practices, and highlights the growing dissatisfaction with judicial elections:

A 2010 public opinion survey of Pennsylvania voters reflected deep distrust of the judicial election system: 76 percent believe that campaign contributions influence judges’ decisions; only 21 percent believe the most qualified candidates win judicial elections.

These staggering numbers reflect a lack of faith that elections produce qualified, fair and impartial judges. Research demonstrates widespread belief that “justice is for sale” to campaign contributors with deep pockets.

The editorial points out that:

It has been more than 40 years since the public had the chance to weigh in on how to choose our judges. In the 2010 statewide poll, 93 percent responded that Pennsylvanians should have the right to vote on this issue.

Pennsylvanians should not have to accept a system they believe is broken. It is time to give voters the opportunity to decide whether there is a better way to choose appellate court judges. Our legislators should give the public that opportunity. 

Today, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on H.B. 1815, which would amend the constitution to change from electing appellate judges to using a Merit Selection system.  A positive vote will send the bill to the House Floor. But this is only the first step in a lengthy process.  Amending the constitution takes much time and deliberation — two successive legislatures must pass identical legislation.  If that happens, the people must vote in a referendum to amend the constitution.  As PMC points out in the editorial, “our constitution can change only if the people of Pennsylvania vote to change it.”

We believe it is time for Pennsylvanians to have that opportunity.  We hope the legislature will give it to them.