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.

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.

PMC also called on the Legislature to amend the state constitution to end election of appellate judges in Pennsylvania.  As PMC Deputy Director Shira J. Goodman explained:

 Judicial elections require candidates to campaign, politick, and fundraise, eliminating the distinction between them and politicians. Judicial elections are designed to pick the best campaigners and fundraisers. We need a system that is designed to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the bench. . . . PMC calls on the legislature to. . .  give the people of Pennsylvania the opportunity to decide whether there is a better way to select appellate judges.

The role of money in judicial elections and the public perception that campaign contributions affect judicial decision-making are critical reasons to find a better way to choose judges.  Merit Selection takes judges out of the fundraising business; no longer would the public have to worry whether a lawyer or party in court had contributed to the campaign of one of the judges or justices deciding the case.

This hearing is an important step in the constitutional amendment process, a process that culminates in a referendum election in which the people of Pennsylvania decide whether to change how we select appellate court judges.  The hearing offers a chance to begin an important dialogue about this critical issue.  We are grateful to the House Judiciary Committee for providing the forum for this public discussion.

The hearing will be held at the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Quadrangle, Cafe 58, First Floor, Irvine Auditorium.  The address is 3401 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA.

PMC and PMCAction have long been concerned about the real and perceived influence of contributions to judicial campaigns; this concern applies to all donors and all candidates.  We know that judicial campaign contributions lead the public to believe that justice is for sale, and we therefore urge Pennsylvania to get judges out of the fundraising business once and for all. The way to do this is to stop electing appellate court judges. Merit Selection is the answer.

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.”

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 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.