judgesonmerit.org

In an editorial today, the Philadelphia Inquirer urges the legislature to act on pending Merit Selection legislation.  Although the paper has supported Merit Selection for a long time, the impetus for the call today was the pending investigation of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin for improper use of her judicial staff for her judicial election campaigns.  The editorial first echoes PMC’s calls for Justice Orie Melvin to temporarily step down from her duties on the Court.   The editorial then explains:

The allegations alone ought to be enough to shake the public’s faith in the state’s system of electing its most powerful judges.

No matter what the outcome of the inquiry into the Orie sisters, the state judiciary would not have to weather such controversy if its top judges were chosen through a merit-based system of appointment, with voters’ concurrence through nonpartisan retention elections. . . .

With the Melvin controversy bringing renewed attention to Pennsylvania’s discredited system of electing judges, Harrisburg officials should seize the moment and move ahead on judicial reform.

We agree, and we hope the people of Pennsylvania will be given the chance to decide for themselves whether there is a better way to select appellate court judges.

There has been extensive news coverage of the revelation that Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin is the target of an on-going grand jury investigation about the use of government staff for election activities.  In the wake of those revelations, PMC called on the Justice to temporarily step aside from her judicial duties; PMC also urged the state Supreme Court to temporarily suspend Justice Orie Melvin if she failed to voluntarily step aside. PMC has been cited in numerous articles throughout the Commonwealth and by local radio stations.

Deputy Director Shira Goodman was quoted in The Legal Intelligencer regarding the target letter Justice Melvin received from the grand jury: “That was kind of the line for us. . . [The target letter] moved this from the realm of ‘this is kind of a sticky situation’ to ‘this is really much more serious and could undermine her ability to serve.’” Both the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Post-Gazette quoted PMC Executive Director Lynn Marks who stated that: “All citizens, including judges are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but judges and especially supreme court justices should not be permitted to judge others while under the cloud of such a serious investigation.”

Philadelphia Public Radio WHYY News Works also quoted Goodman in regards to Justice Melvin’s recusal from hearing cases involving the Allegheny County prosecutor who argued the previous criminal cases against her sisters: “We don’t think it’s enough. . . I think she would still be weighing in on very important questions that affect all Pennsylvanians from family matters to business questions to possibly the redistricting case and we don’t need a cloud. We don’t need questions about whether a judge. . . legitimately should be there or not.”

On Thursday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette echoed PMC’s call for Justice Melvin to take a leave of absence or face suspension:

Justice Melvin simply cannot go on as if this is business as usual. While her own presumption of innocence has not changed, her continuing presence on the high court does no service to the people of Pennsylvania or the venerable institution whose reputation she is supposed to uphold. Justice Melvin has already conceded half the point by recusing herself from cases involving the Allegheny County district attorney’s office. She must go further and take a leave of absence until this black cloud is cleared. If she won’t go voluntarily while the grand jury tries to connect the all-too-prominent dots of this case, Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille should use his power to convene a four-member majority of the court to suspend her.

Harrisburg Public Radio WITF also spoke to Goodman who outlined the problems with the judicial selection process in Pennsylvania: “We have a system that treats judges like politicians. They have to get party endorsements, they have to raise money, they have to curry favor with special interest groups to be able to run and succeed in a 67 county state.”  Goodman went on to explain that the grand jury investigation demonstrates why elections are not the right way to choose our appellate judges.

An editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer uses the case of a Philadelphia Traffic Court as evidence of the problems inherent in electing judges.  Traffic Court Judge Willie Singletary is in trouble, and as the editorial points out, it’s not the first time.

Judge Singletary, who was already sentenced to a reprimand and probation by the Court of Judicial Discipline for violations during his campaign that included direct solicitation of contributions and seeming to promise favorable outcomes in exchange for donations, has now been escorted out of of Traffic Court following allegations that he showed naked pictures of himself to a City employee doing work related to Traffic Court.   And, before he was elected to Traffic Court, Singletary had amassed huge traffic fines ($11,500) and had his driver’s license suspended.  This history prompted the following observation by the Inquirer:

Beyond suggesting an ability to empathize with the plight of drivers in similar straits, Singletary’s resumé hardly stands as an endorsement for Pennsylvania’s system of electing judges. It’s also a condemnation of the vetting process of the city’s dominant Democratic Party, to which many judicial candidates must pay fealty – and a hefty donation – for its help on Election Day.

We’ve long known that judicial elections reward fundraising prowess, campaign skill, and other attributes that are unrelated to one’s ability to serve as a judge.  Pennsylvanians deserve a system of choosing judges that is designed to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the bench.  Judicial elections are not the way.

The Philadelphia Inquirer wants to know how you decide who to vote for in judicial elections.  So, they’ve created an on-line poll.  They offer four options:

I just look at their political party.

I look at bar association ratings.

I pick the familiar-sounding name.

No clue as to any of the candidates, so not voting.

Take a minute and vote. And if you have another reason that’s not listed there, let us know in the comments.

An editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer reviews the finding of the New Politics of Judicial Elections 2009-2010 and concludes that it is time for Pennsylvania to change to Merit Selection.  Reviewing the very expensive 2009 Pennsylvania Supreme Court race and looking at the biggest sources of the campaign funding, the editorial notes, “Seeing that cascade of cash, more voters have reason to subscribe to the well-documented public perception that justice is for sale.”

The editorial cites polling data from Pennsylvanian and nationwide that demonstrates wide-spread public belief that campaign contributions affect judicial decision-making.  “That perception threatens to erode confidence in the state courts as places where every litigant can get a fair shake. ”

The recommended solution is Merit Selection:

With merit selection legislation pending in both the state House and Senate, and the support of five current and former governors, it’s time for Pennsylvania leaders to push forward. . . .[T]he facts on the impact of uncontrolled campaign funding, as well as majority public sentiment, are solidly behind making the switch to an appointed appellate judiciary.

We agree: it is time for Pennsylvanians to get the chance to weigh in on whether we are using the best system to choose our appellate court judges.  We hope they will get the opportunity.

A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial criticizing the recent “request” by the Philadelphia Democratic Party for $10,000 contributions from judges standing for retention this year, strongly condemns the electoral system.  “By approaching sitting judges for campaign contributions, party officials are engaging in what the state’s longtime court-reform group, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, calls “a prime example of how money and politics pollute the process of electing judges.”  The editorial specifically attacks the way the electoral system essentially requires fundraising from those most likely to appear in court, noting that it creates “at the least, an impression among the public that justice is for sale.”

The editorial closes with the hope that instances like this will further spur the move for reform: “the whole breakfast episode should at least help motivate some state lawmakers – their efforts supported by Gov. Corbett – who are pushing for the merit-based appointment of appellate-court judges as a first step in breaking the link between judges and campaign cash.”  We hope this prediction proves accurate and that Pennsylvanians will soon have the opportunity to decide whether they want to change the way we select appellate court judges.

In a letter published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, PMC and Justice At Stake argue that when political parties demand “contributions” from sitting judges for support in retention elections, the whole purpose of retention elections has been undermined.  The letter responds to a report that the Philadelphia Democratic Party has requested $10,000 “contributions” from judges standing for retention in exchange for support on election day.

PMC and Justice At Stake explain that retention elections are yes/no, uncontested and nonpartisan and serve to let the public determine whether a judge should remain on the bench.  PMC and Justice at Stake urge that we are all responsible for returning retention elections to their original purpose: “Lawyers, bar associations, civic groups, and those who care about good government and fair courts — including the media — must ensure that retention elections are what they were intended to be: a referendum on the judge’s performance on the bench, not another political contest.”

The letter closes with this strong statement about why we need reform:  “The [Democratic] party’s greedy ‘request’ is a reminder that judges shouldn’t be elected in the first place.  Judges and money should not mix. Politics should stay out of the courtroom.”

An editorial in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer offers a positive review of the introduction of Merit Selection legislation in the General Assembly. The editorial cites the 2010 Poll that found that 93% of the Pennsylvanians surveyed want the opportunity to vote on whether to change how we choose appellate judges.  The editorial quotes PMC: “voters unquestionably deserve ‘the chance to make their voices heard.’”

The editorial closes with a prediction of what Merit Selection would achieve for Pa:

Other states’ experience leaves no doubt that an appointed appellate bench would mean judges are more likely to be selected on the basis of qualifications and their ability to be fair and impartial.

Citizens, as a result, would have a greater assurance that justice was not being auctioned to the highest bidder.

We certainly agree that Merit Selection offers a better way of choosing appellate court judges.

Accompanying the article is a Philly.com SayWhat? Poll that describes the Merit Selection proposal and asks readers to vote on whether it’s Time to Appoint PA’s Top Judges.  There are four possible votes: two answer yes and describe benefits of Merit Selection, including that it produces a qualified and diverse judiciary and that it takes money out of the system of selecting judges. Please pick your reason and Vote Yes today.

In an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Matthew Zencey, former editorial page editor of the Anchorage Daily News and first-time Pennsylvania voter, expresss big concerns about our judicial elections system:

I’m not too keen on electing judges. Before heading to vote, I looked up who the bar association said was qualified, but that was about all I knew before making my decision.

He contrasts the election system to Alaska’s Merit Selection system. He finds the Alaska system has worked well, avoiding judicial scandals while allowing voters the opportunity to decide through retention elections whether certain judges should remain on the bench.

Zencey also points out some other problems inherent in electing judges:

Even if you don’t have corrupt pols getting onto the bench, filling the judicial branch with elected judges is risky. They have to cater to a party organization, then raise lots of money from lawyers and companies whose cases they’ll be handling, before finally pandering to the people who elect them. Like the Founders, I’d prefer a judiciary that’s more insulated from the corruption of politics and the passions of the masses.

Wow, it only took Zencey one election to figure out that Pennsylvania’s system of electing judges makes no sense.  Hopefully, the legislature will let Pennsylvanians make this call for themselves by putting the issue of how we choose judges on the ballot for the people to decide.

So, it’s the morning after.  As expected, very low voter turnout yesterday.  In the appellate court races, the Republican endorsed candidates won handily.  The Democrat for Superior Court was running unopposed. But the Democratic contest for Commonwealth Court is not yet determined, and it’ s possible that the unendorsed candidate who received a “not recommended” rating from the Pennsylvania Bar Association could be on the ballot in November.

In Philadelphia, ballot position and party endorsement were important factors in determining who won the very crowded races for Common Pleas Court.

So, what’s all this mean? That elections still aren’t designed to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the bench.  Instead, elections generally reward luck (ballot position), political connections (party endorsement), and fundraising prowess.  Why should Pennsylvania be relying on such a system to pick officials whose job is to be fair, impartial, unbiased judges accountable to the law?

PMC representatives spent election day encouraging Pennsylvanians to vote while also pointing out the problems inherent in electing judges.  PMC’s Executive Director Lynn A. Marks spoke on PCN’s Call-In Show about how judges are different from other public officials and should therefore be selected in a different way.  Deputy Director Shira Goodman spoke about the issue and why electing judges doesn’t make sense on WHYY and WILK FM.

In addition, our letter in the Times-Leader argues: “The best way to solve the “money problem” is to get judges out of the fundraising business by ending the practice of electing judges.”

Our comments about the elections and how random factors have too great a role in deciding who gets on the bench can be found in the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News.  Most telling is an interview with Marks following her own trip to the voting booth:

‘I voted this morning. . . .I’m a politically active lawyer, and I didn’t know most of the people running. . . .’

‘It’s a crazy system to have people running very political campaigns for a job that’s supposed to be non-political and non-partisan.’

So, here at JudgesOnMerit, we’re doing our “Monday Morning Quarterbacking” and once again asking why we continue to elect judges this way.  We think it’s time for Pennsylvanians to get the opportunity to decide whether there is a better way to pick judges. We hope they will get that chance.