judgesonmerit.org

Usually judicial candidates — even those who support Merit Selection — are hesitant to criticize the electoral process or call for reform during the election season.  But yesterday, Supreme Court candidate (and current Superior Court Judge) Jack Panella, in an address to the Pennsylvania Press Club, noted that he believes there is a better way to select judges in Pennsylvania.  As the Associated Press reports:

Panella said he respects the efforts of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a group[] that advocates that state appellate judges be appointed by the governor from a list recommended by a public commission.

He says he strongly supports the concept because it would take fundraising and political bosses out of the selection process.

Judge Panella’s comments underscore some of the big problems of the judicial election system.  Because he speaks with inside, first-hand knowledge of the process, his comments about the role of money and politics are particulary instructive.  If a judge who’s already been elected to one appellate court and is now running again for a seat on the highest court of the state thinks the process needs reform, maybe it’s time for more work to be done to ensure that Pennsylvania uses the best system to select appellate judges.

The Times Leader, serving Northeastern Pennsylvania, published a commentary piece by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts this weekend addressing how to increase public confidence in our courts.  There has been a string of cases involving judges getting into criminal and/or ethical trouble, most recently a scandal involving two judges in Luzerne County.  PMC offered three suggestions for restoring public confidence:

First, our judicial discipline system must be strong, independent, willing and able to mete out strict discipline when necessary – even if it means stripping someone of the privilege of serving as a judge. . . .  Second, our bar leaders and court leadership should express outrage – on behalf of the people – at criminal and unethical conduct by judges. . . . Finally, Pennsylvanians should move forward with a constitutional amendment to change the way we select judges.

The third suggestion requires systemic reform, legislative action and broad public support.  We believe the outcome would be worth the effort:

We already know that many Pennsylvanians are concerned about the pernicious effect of money in judicial campaigns. We must get money out of the system of selecting judges and focus on qualifications, experience and the highest ethical standards. Elections, unfortunately, don’t emphasize these factors. We need a system that does.

An editorial introducing our piece called our suggestions “worth studying.”  We hope that Pennsylvanians will agree that it’s time to look for real solutions.

In an op-ed in the Patriot-News, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) argues that a series of cases involving illegal and/or unethical conduct by Pennsylvania judges has further diminished public confidence in the courts.  Even though these cases involve individual judges who made bad choices and exercised poor judgment, they damage the judiciary as a whole:

Public confidence in the courts has been undermined. Not that the level of public confidence was that high to begin with. Research reveals that nearly 90 percent of Pennsylvanians believe campaign contributions affect judicial decisions. Look at that closely — nine out of 10 Pennsylvanians think that judges do not separate what happened during their political campaigns from how they rule in the courtroom. Combined with a general mistrust of public officials, particularly in light of the 2005 pay raise, this adds up to a disturbingly low level of public confidence in judges and, by extension, the justice system as a whole.

PMC proposes three steps to restore public confidence in the courts and the judiciary.  First, the judicial discipline system must remain strong and independent.  Second, PMC calls for court leaders and bar leaders to make a strong statement condemning illegal and unethical conduct by judges.  The third recommendation is for Pennsylvania to adopt a Merit Selection system for choosing judges:

We already know that many Pennsylvanians are concerned about the pernicious effect of money in judicial campaigns. We must get money out of the system of selecting judges and focus on qualifications, experience and the highest ethical standards.

Pennsylvania has to deal with a serious problem.  The actions of a few have harmed the entire court system.  For the court system to be effective, the public must be confident that justice will be dispensed honestly, fairly and impartially:

Judges serve the public. The public’s confidence in the judicial system is fragile but necessary in a democracy. The Legislature and the Supreme Court must act now to restore public confidence. And we all must be vigilant in ensuring that our public servants are serving the public.

Earlier this week, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, along with 27 national, state and local reform groups, filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Caperton v. Massey. The question raised in this case is whether the due process clause requires judges in certain situations to recuse from cases involving campaign contributors. The brief argues that the essence of due process is a fair and impartial judge:

[P]recedent, and the history of the Due Process Clause, require that the Court find that judicial campaign contributions, in certain circumstances, create the reality or appearance of judicial bias in violation of the Due Process Clause.

The brief discusses the history of judicial selection and notes that because of the increasing expense of elections and the growing importance of campaign contributions “Judicial elections have created a crisis in public confidence.” The brief discusses the evolution of efforts in the states and nationally to address this crisis and improve the judicial selection process. Merit Selection was one of the reforms highlighted.

We are proud to be part of this brief and are eager to see how the Court will address this critical question. Keep checking for updates. To read more about this brief, visit Text and History; information about all the amici briefs filed in the case is available in this press release from Justice At Stake and the Brennan Center.

In an editorial Saturday, the Philadelphia Inquirer praised Merit Selection as a good solution to the problems inherent in electing judges:

What citizens already have decided about judicial elections is that they’re confusing at best, with legal qualifications playing a minimal role in who wins. At their worst, judicial elections are tainted by what Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille calls the “corrosive effect of money.” An appointed judiciary with voter oversight is the remedy.

The editorial also pointed out the errors of those who claim Merit Selection would take something away from the voters:

Opponents of the merit-based appointment system argue that it disenfranchises voters. But the hybrid approach proposed for Pennsylvania would give voters their say.

Once appointed, Supreme Court justices – and judges on the Commonwealth and Superior Courts – all would have to pass muster with voters after an initial period on the bench. To continue in office, these judges would have to win a yes/no retention election. . . .

Of course, the switch to an appointed system requires voter approval through a constitutional amendment, once the General Assembly approves a plan over two legislative sessions. “So part of our pitch is: Let people vote,” says Lynn A. Marks of the Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts reform group. Indeed, how can critics of merit selection deny voters their input?

That’s a question we would love to hear answered.

The editorial is worth a full read, because it offers a good recap of the reasons we need to find a new way of selecting appellate court judges.  We hope the people of Pennsylvania will get the opportunity to decide whether to do so.

In a press release issued today, PMC and PMCAction Executive Director Lynn Marks noted the great strides made by judicial reform advocates in Pennsylvania this year. Civic, business and legal groups, and reform-minded legislators have joined a growing coalition working to replace partisan election of Pennsylvania’s appellate judges with a Merit Selection system. Marks praises their efforts, and looks forward to more progress in the coming legislative session.

On July 1, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts issues a press release about the newly confirmed interim appointments to four appellate court vacancies. Executive Director Lynn Marks echoed the sentiment reflected in yesterday’s post: “We must be clear about this. Despite the fact that this process involved nomination by the governor and confirmation by the Senate, it is not the same as Merit Selection.” The press release went on to highlight the differences between the two processes.

The press release concluded: “We hope that disillusionment with the current process and dissatisfaction with the delay that resulted will motivate the public to demand a better way to fill all appellate court vacancies — Merit Selection.”