judgesonmerit.org

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.

The editorial board of the Reading Eagle makes a strong case to move to Merit Selection of judges in an editorial published today. The paper cites the record amount raised to date by Judge Jack Panella ($2.35 million), and that the total raised by both campaigns is expected to total over $4 million by the time final reports are due on February 1, 2010.

In fact, the numbers do not reflect the true amounts raised by the candidates. As we’ve reported on previously (here, here, and here, for example), the widely reported amounts raised in elections typically represent only money contributed directly to the campaigns of the candidates, and not third party and political party money spent directly on the election. Election observers will note that all of Judge Orie Melvin’s television commercials were paid for by the Republican Party, and thus represent a huge sum of money not reflected in her campaign’s reported contributions and expenditures (Panella’s ads were paid for directly by his campaign).

PMC’s Lynn Marks was quoted as saying why all of this is so troubling:

[T]he money comes from lawyers, law firms, unions and businesses who frequently litigate in the state courts. . . . These are not the types of records Pennsylvania should be proud of. But when you elect judges in partisan contests, the elections become more expensive, not less so.’”

The clincher:

Marks said nine of 10 Pennsylvanians polled by a state Supreme Court commission believe that judges are at least sometimes influenced by campaign contributions.

That’s no way to run an election for the state’s appellate court system. There has to be a better way, and there is. And it is nothing new. In fact former Gov. Tom Ridge, before he left office to join President George W. Bush’s Cabinet, urged the Pennsylvania Legislature to begin the move toward merit selection of statewide judges.”

There are currently bills before the state house and senate proposing a detailed plan for the selection of appellate judges based on merit. It’s time for the state to decisively take money out of the equation.

After a year and a half of debate and revision, a bill to start the process of bringing Merit Selection to the appellate courts of Washington has stalled in a committee of the Washington House of Representatives. Seattle attorney and blogger Rand Koler, who writes extensively about the Washington judiciary, has been following with interest the progress of the Merit Selection proposal. He believes, as we do, that “our system of government depends on an independent judicial branch, free — to the extent possible — from the influence of lobbyists, special interests and generally the sway of money.”

HB 2150 has support and sponsors on both sides of the political aisle. As an amendment to the Washington constitution, it would have allowed the state’s voters to weigh in on their preferred method for selecting appellate judges. Unfortunately, it’s been sidelined by the House Rules Committee, and Committee Chair Frank Chopp has exercised his power to keep the bill from coming up for a vote.

It’s unfortunate that this reform effort has, at least for now, been tabled. We hope that someone can prevail upon Mr. Chopp to allow his colleagues in the legislature, and the people of Washington, the chance to vote on this Merit Selection proposal.

A recent Philadelphia Inquirer editorial urged the state legislature to stay on track and not get diverted from pursuing important reform legislation, such as legislative redistricting. We share the Inquirer’s concern that this legislative session is winding down with precious little action on some critical issues that affect the way we run our government.

Our primary concern is Merit Selection of appellate judges. Bills to amend the constitution have been referred to the Judiciary Committees in both houses. Passage of such bills is the first step toward letting Pennsylvanians vote in a referendum on how to choose appellate judges.

But first, we need a hearing. Please tell your legislators — particularly Judiciary Committee members and committee chairs Senator Greenleaf and Representative Caltagirone — that you want a chance to vote on changing how we choose appellate judges.

Calling all supporters of Merit Selection: We need your help!

As you know, changing the way Pennsylvania selects its appellate judges is a lengthy process. Right now, to keep moving forward, HB 2488 needs to be heard in the Judiciary Committee.

Please contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee. Ask them for a hearing on HB 2488, and ask them to support Merit Selection of appellate judges in Pennsylvania so that Pennsylvanians will have the opportunity to vote on this important subject in a constitutional referendum.

The members of the House Judiciary Committee are listed below. Click on the their names to obtain their contact information.

Majority:

• Rep. Thomas Caltagirone, D-Berks, Chairman
• Rep. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, Secretary
• Rep. Kathy Manderino, D-Montgomery, Subcommittee Chairman on Family Law
• Rep. John Pallone, D-Armstrong, Subcommittee Chairman on Crime and Corrections
• Rep. Don Walko, D-Allegheny, Subcommittee Chairman on Courts
• Rep. Lisa Bennington, D-Allegheny
• Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny
• Rep. Harold James, D-Philadelphia
• Rep. Deberah Kula, D-Fayette
• Rep. Bryan Lentz, D-Delaware
• Rep. Joseph Petrarca, D-Armstrong
• Rep. Sean Ramaley, D-Allegheny
• Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware
• Rep. Chelsa Wagner, D-Allegheny
• Rep. Jesse White, D-Allegheny
• Rep. Jewell Williams, D-Philadelphia

Minority

• Rep. Ron Marsico, R-Dauphin, Chairman
• Rep. Tom Creighton, R-Lancaster, Subcommittee Chariman on Courts
• Rep. Will Gabig, R-Cumberland, Subcommittee Chairman on Crime and Corrections
• Rep. Glenn Grell, R-Cumberland, Subcommittee Chairman on Family Law
• Rep. Craig Dally, R-Northampton
• Rep. John Evans, R-Crawford
• Rep. Kate Harper, R-Montgomery
• Rep. Beverly Mackereth, R-York
• Rep. Carl Mantz, R-Berks
• Rep. Bernie O’Neill, R-Buck
• Rep. Tina Pickett, R-Bradford
• Rep. Todd Rock, R-Franklin
• Rep. Katie True, R-Lancaster

This weekend, State Representative and Deputy Speaker Josh Shapiro (D -153) held a town meeting for his constituents. Shapiro identified Merit Selection of appellate judges as a critical reform for Pennsylvania. He explained why judges are different from other public officials and why it makes sense to use a different process to select them.

Representative Shapiro answered constituent questions about the pending Merit Selection proposal and invited PMC/PMCAction’s Shira Goodman to provide information about judicial selection in Pennsylvania and other states.

We thank Representative Shapiro for his strong support of Merit Selection and his co-sponsorship of House Bill 2488 & House Bill 2386. H.B. 2488 is the first step toward letting the people of Pennsylvania decide how we should choose appellate court judges.

To implement a Merit Selection system for the appellate courts requires a constitutional amendment. This requires passage of legislation in two consecutive legislative sessions, followed by a public referendum.

The first step is now underway. Bills containing the proposed text of the amendment, as well as the enabling legislation creating the nominating commission, are currently being considered by committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The text of the proposed amendment and accompanying enabling legislation are available: SENATE BILL No. 1324 and HOUSE BILL No. 2488 (proposed amendment); SENATE BILL No. 1325 and HOUSE BILL No. 2386 (proposed enabling legislation).

A summary of the legislation is available here.

On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, a new Merit Selection initiative for the Pennsylvania appellate courts will be announced by Senators Jane Earll and Anthony Williams and Representatives David Steil and Josh Shapiro , prime sponsors of the legislation. The Philadelphia Inquirer, in a front page article, describes this as a “major push” for Merit Selection.

PMC and PMCAction are very excited about this opportunity to change the way Pennsylvania chooses appellate court judges. Merit Selection will eliminate the influence of money in the selection of judges; give more people the chance to serve as judges, including those without great financial resources or political connections; and make sure that qualifications and experience determine who becomes a judge. This will increase public confidence that our courts are fair and impartial and serve all Pennsylvanians, regardless of financial standing or political affiliation.

In future posts, we will describe the Merit Selection proposal and how it will benefit all Pennsylvanians.