judgesonmerit.org

In our neighboring state of Ohio, Supreme Court justices are elected into office.  And with the Supreme Court making as many important decisions affecting political matters as it does, reports the Dayton Daily News, the design of the system itself creates a problem:

Some court observers say bias is inevitable when justices are elected by popular vote and receive campaign contributions that can run into the millions.

The retiring Chief Justice, Thomas Moyer, believes in the integrity of his Court and its decisions, but he acknowledged the public perception that “justice is for sale.”  The article quotes two well-known studies demonstrating that the perception is indeed wide-spread:

A 2008 American Bar Association poll found 79 percent of adults believed judges should not be allowed to accept money from “special interests.”

A 2002 poll sponsored by the Ohio League of Women Voters . . . found 83 percent of Ohio registered voters believe campaign contributions influence judges either to a great extent or somewhat.”

This trend is typical of a state that has popular elections of judges, especially one like Ohio, which from 1998-2008 spent over $20 million on judicial campaigns.  The paper cited Ohio as being the second largest spender on judicial elections in the last decade after Alabama (with $40.9 million raised).  Pennsylvania’s 2007 contest alone involved over $7.8 million in direct contributions to judicial candidates.

To combat the popular perception that judicial independence is threatened, Chief Justice Moyer is organizing a conference, along with the Ohio State Bar Association and the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund, which he hopes will raise momentum for a change to Ohio’s electoral system.  We hope Justice O’Connor, who will be participating in the conference and is a fierce advocate of Merit Selection, can convince the state of the benefits of choosing judges on merit.

On May 6, PMC, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Harrisburg Area Community College co-sponsored a debate among the four candidates running for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  Capitol Wire has a feature article covering the debate.  The program is being aired on PCN.  The next showing is Sunday May 10 at 3:00pm.  Check PCN’s website for more information and additional scheduling information.

One highlight was the discussion focused on campaign contributions.  PMC Associate Director Shira Goodman asked the candidates to identify the major contributors to their campaigns and state whether they would recuse — step aside — from cases involving those contributors as attorneys, law firms, or parties.

The candidates agreed that raising money is the necessary evil that goes along with electing judges.  Democrat Jack Panella told voters that despite what some may say, judicial candidates — and therefore judges — know who their contributors are because they sign financial disclosure forms.  However, he and the other candidates all stated that because the next round of required reporting is just coming to an end, they could not identify their donors.

Republican Joan Orie Melvin suggested that the the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could set strict guidelines on recusal to guide judges, along the lines of what the United States Supreme Court might do in Caperton v. Massey .  Republican Cheryl Allen noted that in a past election, she had one major donor whose participation in a case would result in her recusal.  And Republican Paul Panepinto stated that he would recuse in any case involving a campaign contributor.

Throughout the night, the candidates discussed the need for judges not only to be fair and impartial, but for the public to have the perception that they are fair and impartial. But they also agreed that the role of campaign money can be a problem with regard to perception. Why not, then, get judges out of the fundraising business altogether? We think it’s time to find a better way to select appellate court judges.

Our friends at Gavel Grab offer a complete analysis of the Caperton v. Massey argument, including commentary from PMC, the League of Women Voters and other amici.  Gavel Grab quotes PMC Associate Director Shira Goodman:

“Pennsylvania, which elects all judges in partisan elections, has seen first hand the steadily increasing influence of money in judicial elections. Coupled with that has been the decreasing public confidence in the impartiality of our courts. The more money that comes in, the less confidence the people have. The scales of justice need to be rebalanced. A strong decision by the Supreme Court requiring recusal in at least some cases will help to do that.”

Also posted on Gavel Grab is an email Justice At Stake sent to its Partners (including PMC) about the case, concluding with this encouragement:

We now must wait until the Supreme Court rules, but the last few months already represent an extraordinary victory in educating the public on threats to our courts, and in commanding media attention on the critical issue of protecting impartial courts from special-interest money.