judgesonmerit.org

In a weekend commentary in the St. Louis Dispatch, Missouri Bar President Charlie J. Harris praises the judicial selection system used in Missouri, the model for many other Merit Selection plans and proposals:

No million-dollar campaigns, no vicious attack ads. . . . The beauty of the plan is that judicial candidates don’t have to curry the favor of either political party or prowl about for campaign contributions. What judicial candidates do need are impeccable credentials, a strong understanding of the law and the standing within the legal profession and their community to gain the trust and respect of others.

Harris contrasted the situation in Missouri with the ugly judicial elections in many states, such as Pennsylvania, noting: “In those states, voters are barraged by demeaning political attack ads, designed to destroy the opposing candidate’s credibility. The content of those ads encourages the public to think poorly of the candidate, and the money behind the ads raises serious concerns.”

The proposal to bring Merit Selection to Pennsylvania includes a framework based on the Missouri Plan, modified to reflect the unique cultural and political history of Pennsylvania. We hope Pennsylvania will soon join states like Missouri that choose their appellate court judges through Merit Selection.

Another Mississippi newspaper is warning about the effects of massive campaign donations on the justice dispensed in the state’s appellate courts. An editorial in the Greenwood Commonwealth considers recent trends in verdicts issued by the Mississippi Supreme Court, and suggests that campaign contributions might be influencing the Court’s decisions. “For the coming elections,” the paper warns, “voters should educate themselves on who is contributing to whom because that’s a good sign as to how they’ll rule if elected.”

The piece offers a solution that would remove any suggestion that campaign contributions influence verdicts: do away with elections for appellate judges.

What is needed on the court, of course, are fair-minded jurists who are not beholden to big contributors… This could be better accomplished through a system of appointing, rather than electing, appellate court judges.

Merit Selection does exactly that. Merit Selected judges don’t have to raise campaign funds, so any apperance of bias toward campaign donors is eliminated. It’s time to bring Merit Selection to Pennsylvania, so that our appellate judges can rule based on the law, free from any suggestion that they’re just following the money.

A June 29th editorial in Jackson, Mississippi’s Clarion-Ledger shows how wealthy interests on either side of a single issue – tort reform – have twisted elections for the state’s Supreme Court. These elections have become a million-dollar sparring ground, where big bank accounts battle to influence judicial policy, and the interests of ordinary citizens and impartial justice are consigned to the bleachers.

Both sides – plaintiffs’ attorneys and the business/medical community – have too much riding on the outcome of cases not to spend big bucks on these campaigns. Left out and ignored, however, are the poor, the voiceless and those who don’t have enough money for political action committees or lobbyists.

When judicial elections become multi-million dollar endeavors, winning a seat on the bench can become a fundraising contest. Smart, fair-minded and experienced candidates are locked out of the system if they can’t generate the level of donations necessary to compete.

Opponents of judicial selection reform like to present themselves as the champions of the people, fighting to preserve the rights of citizens. But often, what they’re really trying to protect is the ability of wealthy campaign donors to decide who makes it to the bench.

Merit Selection of appellate judges short-circuits the influence of big campaign donations. Because candidates are evaluated on their knowledge and experience, Merit Selection gives qualified people who can’t raise gobs of campaign cash a shot at becoming a judge. The appellate bench will be open to people from all backgrounds, and all areas of the state, with knowledge of and respect for the law as the primary criteria for membership.

As the Pioneer Press explains in an editorial about interim judicial appointees, Minnesota judges “usually take office via a gubernatorial appointment, but then must win re-election to stay in office. This makes it a unique office, out of the flow of daily partisan politics but subject to being sucked in at any moment.” The editorial praises the interim appointment system as a better way to select impartial judges:

Judges should be appointed based on merit and not on political calculus. Fairness, experience and integrity are paramount virtues. We love political battling in legislative races but do not want judicial candidates to be cozying up to interest groups, declaring their views on issues pending before them or attacking foes on television. We want Minnesotans to believe that the judge before whom they are appearing is there for the right reasons and will apply the law impartially.

This is a good summary of the goals of Merit Selection advocates. We want an appellate bench staffed by judges who know and respect the law, and who will apply it without regard to popular opinion, political whims, or the pressures of campaign donors.

Merit Selection is the system designed to accomplish this. While no system can entirely remove politics from judicial selection, Merit Selection frees the process from ever-increasing campaign spending and the exaggerated value of political savvy over ability and experience.

The Wisconsin State Journal has an excellent editorial answering readers’ comments about its recent endorsement of Merit Selection. The editorial addresses many of the recurring arguments and myths we hear from opponents of judicial selection reform. For example:

Q. Why do you want to take away our right to elect our justices?

A: A better question is: Why should we use elections, designed to cater to partisan views and to reflect the will of the majority, to select justices who are supposed to be impartial and to protect the rights of the minority?

Think of it this way: Do you believe football fans should vote on who referees Green Bay Packers games? What happens when the Packers play the Bears? Will Chicago fans outvote the Wisconsin faithful?

Or should the National Football League select officials based on league evaluations of their expertise, impartiality and previous performance?

The piece addresses other common Merit misconceptions, including the roll of politics in Merit Selection, and the non-existent conspiracy to end elections for all government officials. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in learning more about Merit Selection.

Iowa has used a merit selection process since 1962. Although their process is not perfect, observing judicial elections in sister states has confirmed for Iowans that they made the right choice. A June 11, 2008, editorial in The Des Moines Register addresses the problem of money in judicial elections:

Candidates must raise big money from potential litigants and law firms, and they wage campaigns that may suggest promising to take certain legal positions in exchange for votes.

This summary hits the nail on the head. No party or attorney wants to try her case against opposing counsel who has made monetary contributions to the presiding judge. No ethical judge will base her decision on which attorney’s pockets were deeper, of course. But the appearance of impropriety threatens to sully any elected judge’s reputation and threatens the judiciary’s unbiased, neutral reputation overall.

As the editorial notes, “Politics cannot be completely removed from judicial selection, but politics should not dominate, lest candidates be expected to make promises about how they will rule.”

We agree with this wise assessment. And though we can’t get politics completely out of the process of selecting appellate court judges, we can get the money out. We should follow Iowa’s good example and choose Merit Selection.

As the campaign for Merit Selection progresses, we hear some inaccurate arguments repeated by those who oppose Merit Selection. In an effort to set the record straight, we’ll reveal the truth and clear up these myths.

Myth #6: Merit Selection supporters want to do away with all elections.

This is a favorite scare tactic of opponents of Merit Selection, usually worded as a question; “While we’re at it, why not replace election of the governor or the legislature with Merit Selection too?” It suggests, falsely, that supporters of Merit Selection of appellate judges plan to somehow create a world where nobody votes for anything, and the entire government is appointed rather than elected.

The truth is that Merit Selection supporters aren’t trying to replace election of all public officials. We think that Merit Selection is a better way to select appellate judges because judges are different from other elected officials. Judges are sworn to act impartially, to apply the law without regard for personal preference, political pressure or the interests of campaign contributors.

Impartiality isn’t a requirement for other officials, like governors, senators, representatives and mayors. Candidates for those offices make promises in order to raise money and win votes. Donors give money to these campaigns with the expectation that the candidates will vote or act a certain way if elected.

Because the judiciary has to place the law above all other considerations, it’s different from the other branches of government. It doesn’t make sense to treat judges like political officials up until the moment they start doing their jobs. Instead, we should be treating judges differently from the moment they seek to join the bench.

Merit Selection supporters want to ensure a fair, impartial judiciary for all citizens. To that end, we’re seeking to change only how appellate judges are selected. Don’t let anyone tell you any different.

Keep visiting JudgesOnMerit.org to learn the truth about Merit Selection.

In their May 15th cover story about the effort to bring Merit Selection of appellate judges to Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Public Record rehashed the old argument that Merit Selection supporters are conspiring to take away the right to vote for appellate judges. In an effort to set the Record straight, we wrote a letter to its editor. It was published in the May 29th edition, and is available online. As intern K.O. Myers explained, “Reasonable people can disagree about the best way to select appellate judges, but the voters of Pennsylvania should have the opportunity to weigh in on the issue. That’s all we’re asking for.”

Merit Selection of appellate judges isn’t a partisan issue. Groups that care about good government and unbiased justice, from business groups like the Pennsylvania Business Council and the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association to civic groups like Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union, support Merit Selection as the best way to ensure a fair and impartial judiciary for all citizens.

Despite this consensus from a wide spectrum of viewpoints, critics continue to insist that the campaign to bring Merit Selection of appellate judges to Pennsylvania is politically motivated. Working through the democratic process to give Pennsylvania voters the chance to choose a method of judicial selection gets unfairly portrayed as an attempt to undermine democracy.

To get at the truth, let’s take a broader view of judicial selection. In the midst of this year’s bitterly contentious race for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Wisconsin State Journal wrote an editorial urging the state to replace partisan election of its high court justices with a Merit Selection system. This insightful examination of increasingly partisan, expensive judicial elections prompting calls for reform illuminates how Merit Selection safeguards the rights of citizens.

Judges — especially supreme court judges — are supposed to check the majority ‘s power to trample on the minority ‘s rights. Judges do that by remaining impartial and true to the law, rather than bending to the prevailing political winds. When judges are elected in big-money contests in which partisan sides back judges partial to their politics, the system of checks and balances is upset. That’s undemocratic.

Bringing Merit Selection to Pennsylvania’s appellate courts requires that the citizens of Pennsylvania vote for it. If that happens, we will gain a judicial selection system immune to the influence of campaign fundraising. The power of deep-pocket donors will be replaced with a system that provides justice free from the taint of campaign donations. We’ll have a fair, impartial judiciary, able to decide every case without concern for raising campaign funds.

What could be more democratic than that?

In an editorial addressing Governor Rendell’s stalled interim judicial appointments, Scranton’s Times-Tribune points out that judicial elections make it difficult for qualified candidates from many areas of Pennsylvania to reach the appellate bench.

Due to simple electoral math, it is very difficult for any candidate who is not from the Philadelphia area or Allegheny County to be elected to the appellate courts. Diversification of the appellate courts is one of the reasons that the state should switch to a system of merit selection.

Diversity on the bench, including geographic, racial, ethnic, gender and professional diversity, is one of many important characteristics of a fair and impartial justice system. It’s something that’s elections have not produced on Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

We agree with the Times-Tribune that it’s time for Pennsylvania’s legislators to “get the ball rolling on merit selection.”