judgesonmerit.org

Today, the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics released “The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2009-2010.”  The Report chronicles spending during the 2009-2010 judicial election cycle across the nation, and finds that Pennsylvania’s 2009 Supreme Court race was second in cost only to Michigan.  But for the 2007-2010 period, which encompassed two Supreme Court election cycles in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania remained “the nation’s costliest state for high court races.” PMC issued a press release with the Justice at Stake Campaign to highlight the Pennsylvania data.

In addition to the Report, Justice at Stake today also released national polling data revealing that 83% of voters believe that campaign contributions in judicial elections have a “great deal” or “some” influence on judicial decisions.  This is consistent with the 2010 Pennsylvania poll (the full poll is available here) that revealed that 75% were concerned about the effects of such contributions. More and more, judicial elections are creating and perpetuating the perception that “justice is for sale.”

The good news is the poll demonstrates public support for solving the problem by changing the way we select judges: 62% favor Merit Selection.  This mirrors the 2010 Pa. poll as well.

Merit Selection legislation is pending in the House and Senate, and it is likely that the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the legislation in the next few weeks.  We are hopeful that this will move us forward to give Pennsylvanians the opportunity to decide whether to change the way we choose appellate court judges.

An editorial in the Youngstown News (Ohio) calls for a meaningful public dialogue about whether to change to Merit Selection.  Citing the recent New Politics of Judicial Elections report, the editorial observes:

The issue of money and the courts is not new. . . .

But the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that threw open the floodgates to corporations and labor unions to contribute to political candidates is a game changer.

Can the public be assured the courts will remain fair and independent when money is flowing like water?

The editorial notes that in the past, Merit Selection has not passed in Ohio, but it argues that changed circumstances demand a new look.  Here is the call to action:

There is no doubt that the current money-based system of filling state supreme court seats has fed public cynicism and distrust of the judicial system. It’s time — again — for an intelligent, apolitical, public discussion.

That sounds like a very good prescription for Pennsylvania as well. We hope Pennsylvanians will have the chance to have such a discussion about Merit Selection of appellate court judges.