judgesonmerit.org

PMC and PMCAction are pleased to announce that the House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing on Merit Selection on November 17 from 1:30-3:30 pm in Philadelphia.  The hearing will address the pending Merit Selection legislation, H.B. 1815 and H.B. 1816.

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.

In the last weeks of the Pennsylvania judicial election season, campaign contributions in the Superior Court race are becoming the focus of more scrutiny.  A big donation from The Committee for a Better Tomorrow, the political action committee of the Philadelphia Trial LawyersAssociation to Democrat David Wecht is at issue.  The Allentown Morning Call reports that the political action committee contributed $300,000 to the Wecht campaign, and $25,000 to the campaign of Republican candidate Vic Stabile.  This raises Wecht’s fundraising to more than $500,000, which overtakes the spending of each of the nine Superior Court candidates who ran in 2009.  The Republican party has issued a press release, critcizing Wecht’s acceptance of the contribution and urging him to recuse from any case involving a lawyer who contributed to the political action committee in question.

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.

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.

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.

It’s Election Day.  There is a vacancy on the Commonwealth Court and a vacancy on the Superior Court. In addition, there are many local races for Magisterial District Judgeships, Common Pleas Courts, and Philadelphia Municipal and Traffic Court.

The candidates running for the appellate court seats are:

More information about  judicial elections is available on PMC’s frequently asked questions about judicial elections page and PMC’s how judicial elections work page.

PMC Executive Director Lynn A. Marks will appear on PCN-TV’s Call-In Show tonight to discuss today’s judicial elections.  Also appearing will be Pennsylvania Bar Association President Matthew Creme and attorney Gary Hunt of Pittsburgh. The show will air at 7:00 pm. To call in, use PCN’s toll-free number 1-877-PA6-5001 (1-877-726-5001).

An op-ed in the New York Times by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Professor James Sample points out the problems inherent in electing judges, focusing especially on the money problem.

Chemerinsky and Sample conclude that the most viable solution to the problem is to recognize that because judges are different, judicial elections should be different.  They urge that states impose, and the Supreme Court approve, limits on campaign contributions and spending in judicial elections (even if such limits remain unconstitutional in other elections).

We agree that judges are different and should be selected differently than other officials.  But we remain committed to wholesale change — the elimination of judicial elections (at least at the appellate level).

We are not alone in this commitment, as is evident from a letter to the editor from New York attorney Norman Greene: “Eliminating all judicial elections — and replacing them with well-designed appointment systems as are in effect in a number of courts in New York and other states — is . . . the means most likely to achieve overall judicial reform.”

Finding a better way to select judges represents the best way to solve the money problem.  But it also solves other problems inherent in elections — problems like the lack of relevant information for voters seeking to make informed decisions; the focus on political savvy and fundraising skills as opposed to qualifications to serve; the random factors like ballot position and name recognition that disproportionately affect election results; and the lack of diversity on our appellate courts.

To us, there is a common solution to these problems: Merit Selection of appellate court judges.  PMC and PMCAction will continue to work for such reform in Pennsylvania.

In an op-ed in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, PMC’s Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman argue that in the wake of the Luzerne County scandal, there remains a fundamental question for Pennsylvania to answer:

What does it mean to be a judge?The answer should be simple: A judge is a public servant sworn to render judgment in legal cases without regard to self-interest, personal bias, public opinion, or political pressure.

Lately, this fundamental proposition has been overshadowed. But we must demand that it be followed by all Pennsylvania justices and judges, and any judicial behavior falling short of it must not be tolerated.

Marks and Goodman argue that distinctions between what is criminal and what is unethical hold little meaning when it comes to judges, because unethical judicial behavior has the potential to be as harmful as criminal behavior.  They further explain that something has been missing in the aftermath of the scandal, something that may seem obvious, but that needs saying:

There should be an unequivocal official statement that what the former judges did was an example of judicial misconduct of the highest order. It should be made clear to all Pennsylvanians that these men violated almost every rule governing the behavior of the state’s judges.

The authors follow this with a list of ethical constraints on judicial behavior in an effort to restate some basic truths about what Pennsylvanians should be able to expect of their judges.  The op-ed closes with a strong statement about the judicial role:

At its core, kids-for-cash was about judges ignoring who they worked for: the people. These judges abused the power with which the public entrusted them, using it to enrich themselves and their friends.

This is the polar opposite of what it means to be a judge. It must never be allowed to happen again.

PMC issued the following press release following the announcement of the jury’s verdict in the federal corruption trial of former Luzerne County judge Mark Ciavarella:

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC), reacting to the federal jury’s verdict in the trial of former Luzerne County judge Mark Ciavarella, urged the public to “Take back our courthouses.”
Executive Director Lynn A. Marks explained that “Courthouses belong to the people. Judges, court staff, and attorneys are there to serve the system, not to manipulate it for personal gain.” Tragically, this fundamental proposition was completely turned upside down in Luzerne County.

Deputy Director Shira Goodman explained that the public must now act to ensure that the lessons from the Luzerne County scandal will resonate across the Commonwealth. “It reminds us all of our own responsibility for our institutions of government and teaches that when something looks off, we must ask questions.”

PMC encourages the people of Pennsylvania to continue to question how this scandal was allowed to be perpetrated, and how safeguards in the justice system failed to prevent, or at least catch the problems, before the rights of innumerable children and their families were violated. It is time to implement changes that will forestall such abuses of power in the future. PMC urges that “We, the public, must call on our leaders in the Governor’s office, the legislature and the Supreme Court to make sure this happens.”

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts is a statewide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to promote the reform of Pennsylvania’s judicial system.