judgesonmerit.org

John Baer, columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, greets the day after election day with this question: “Time to end electing judges?”  Answering his own question, Baer argues:

It has been long my contention that electing judges, especially statewide, is a joke. It strikes me even more so today. Pennsylvanians are filling six appellate judgeships this year. Yesterday’s ballot carried 22 candidates. I mean, come on.

First of all, it’s a crapshoot. Nobody’s heard of these people. So ballot position, geography (the ballot lists where candidates are from) and gender usually determine outcome. In other words, luck.

Then, Baer moves on to the money problem:

Also, judicial races are unseemly. Campaigns are funded by lawyers who later appear before the judges they help elect. So even apart from the pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey (or elephant) aspect of the process, electing judges begs for politics to influence justice.

Just the possibility that it will is enough to diminish faith in our courts.

Baer advocates for Pennsylvania to make a change and remove itself from the handful of states that elect all judges in partisan elections.  We agree with him and hope that Pennsylvanians will ultimately get to decide for themselves whether to find a better way to pick appellate court judges.

On the eve of judicial elections, the Philadelphia Daily News has endorsed. . .  a different way of picking judges — for policy and practical reasons:

WE WOULD like to maintain that we’re not participating in judicial endorsements because we believe judges should be selected on their merits instead of their campaign war chests and political party relationships.

That’s partially true, but we’re also unequipped to interview the many candidates (this year, 33) vying for judgeships. We realize that this puts us right on par with most voters who are faced with the nearly impossible task of deciding who’s qualified to sit in judgment.

When even newspapers whose reporters and editors spend more time following campaigns and candidates feel ill-equipped to make decisions about who should be a judge, it’s a strong signal that the electoral system isn’t working.  The Daily News has advocated for Merit Selection in the past, but this year’s election endorsement of a different way of picking judges should make us all think about how we should be selecting judges.

In fact, the Sentinel (in Cumberland County) also is urging a change in how we pick judges:

• Editorial
• Letters to the Editor
• Andrea Ciccocioppo
• Rich Lewis
• Guest Editorial
• Lunchtime Blog

The dust-up this past week between the two candidates for the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas only serves to illustrate how flawed our method of electing judges is in Pennsylvania.

It brings to the forefront the fiction that judicial elections are in any way non-partisan, bipartisan — though candidates almost always file on both tickets in the primary — or somehow “above” politics.

And the required filing of financial reports, which were due and became public last week as well, drives home the point that whoever the winners are next week and in November, in judicial races ranging from district magisterial justice to the state supreme court, there will always be a thread of doubt about undue influence and the potential for bias on the bench.

The Sentinel points out that the role of money and politics in judicial selection are of serious concern. Although not quite ready to endorse Merit Selection, the editorial does end with a call for change:

[A]s we are seeing in our own back yard, when judicial candidates enter the traditional no-holds-barred political arena, no one walks away undamaged. A little mud sticks to everyone and both winner and loser are diminished in the end because, ultimately, the standing of the judiciary is besmirched.

There’s got to be a better way.

We agree, and are heartened to see that the current election process is convincing others to join in the call for reform.

The Clout column in the Philadelphia Daily News offers an update on a story we reported about the Philadelphia Democratic party’s effort to ensure that its endorsed local judicial candidates receive total party support:

[Party leader Bob] Brady told ward leaders that their committeepeople would carry the party’s endorsed candidates this year or they could forget about Election Day street money.

There’s just one problem: Some ward leaders can’t tell their committeepeople what to do.

“In our ward, committeepeople want to meet the candidates and make a decision after we discuss it,” said Mike Boyle, who heads the 5th Ward, in Center City.

The column identifies a total of five ward leaders who will challenge the party discipline effort.  “Brady said he hopes the independent wards will support the party’s slate. It won’t help that two of the party’s Common Pleas Court candidates, Roxanne Covington and Sharon Williams Losier, were rated “not recommended” by the Philadelphia Bar Association.”

This is what happens when judges run for election like other officials — party politics, political games, street money all play a role in determining who reaches the bench.  That doesn’t make a lot of sense when the ultimate goal — at least in our minds — is to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges.

The “Clout” section of the Philadelphia Daily News reports that the Philadelphia Democratic party is working to ensure that this year the party is unified behind its endorsed judicial candidates for the local courts: “Democratic City Committee chairman Bob Brady has cracked the whip on ward leaders, telling them that they can either support the party’s judicial candidates in the May 19 primary or forget about “street money” for Election Day operations.”

Brady apparently has been dismayed by the dilution of the influence of the party endorsement, in large part due to the use of “consultants” who, for large fees, connected candidates with ward leaders to make their own “endorsement” deals.

At the party’s meeting in late March, the ward leaders committed to support the endorsed candidates and passed a resolution under which candidates who run against the endorsed slate will not be considered by the party to fill future judicial vacancies.  One ward leader said, “‘It makes the party brand worth something. . . and it will lower the cost of judicial elections.”

In Bucks County, the political parties are also working to ensure that party endorsements mean something, but with a twist. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the local Democratic and Republican parties have united behind a slate of three candidates, two Republicans and one Democrat, for the upcoming judicial elections.

PMC, when questioned about this, explained:

Bipartisan endorsements, though informative, are not akin to merit selection. . . . “It doesn’t remove problems such as having to raise money from lawyers who come before the judges.”

Why should party politics determine who becomes a judge?  Shouldn’t qualifications, skill, experience and a reputation for honesty, integrity and fairness be the key factors in determining who reaches the bench?  Under Merit Selection, that’s what would happen.  Judicial elections focus on other factors — like fundraising ability, skill as a campaigner, and party politics.  We think there’s a better way.

In an editorial criticizing a recent decision of the Court of Judicial Discipline, the Philadelphia Daily News indicts judicial elections:

It seems to us that anyone serious about being a judge should first take the time to review what’s expected of his behavior by reviewing the code, and respond by refraining either from bad behavior or from running for judge.

But that’s the problem with the current system, whereby judges are elected rather than appointed on their merits: The bar for candidacy, and success, is pretty low.

Right now in Pennsylvania, to run for judge — including a seat on the appellate courts — one need only be  a lawyer licensed in Pennsylvania and have resided in the state for a year.  Under Merit Selection, selection would focus on qualifications to serve, including legal experience, skill and reputation for fairness, impartiality and high ethical standards.

We need a system that emphasizes qualifications and that doesn’t give so much influence to irrelevant factors like ballot position, name recognition and fundraising prowess.