judgesonmerit.org

A Lancaster Online editorial predicts that the new proposal for Merit Selection of statewide appellate court judges in Pennsylvania may see some political success this time around. “Many people are growing ever more concerned about the increasingly expensive and partisan elections. Also, the Luzerne County ‘kids for cash’ scandal cast a long shadow over the Pennsylvania judiciary.” The article cites the 2010 Public Opinion Strategies poll that found that 75% of people feared that campaign contributions might influence judicial decisions and 93% wanted the opportunity to vote on whether we change our system for selecting appellate judges in Pennsylvania.

As the author states, the proposal repeats what many fair courts proponents have been saying for years. And as State Representative Bryan Cutler (R-Lancaster), the bill’s primary sponsor, said, “Merit selection has a strong history in our nation and works well in many other jurisdictions. It produces exceptionally qualified candidates who represent the diverse nature of our society.”

The editorial speaks out for a better selection of statewide judges. “[F]ew can argue that voters cast an informed vote when it comes to selecting appellate court judges. This is due, in large part, because candidates are limited by judicial ethics in what they can say during political campaigns. This often reduces the campaigns to generalities, niceties and sound bites.”

We agree that the public deserves better and hope the public will have an opportunity to vote on the best way to choose qualified, fair, and impartial members of the judiciary.

The Public Opinion of Chambersburg has an in-depth article about the upcoming judicial elections.  It opens with this assessment of how elections work:

Lawyers become judges with the help of their peers.  Judges will decide cases argued by the same lawyers who supported them or opposed them during the campaign.

Judicial candidates bristle at the suggestion they could play favorites or hold grudges from the bench. But, they fret about appearances.

The article notes that the four candidates running for two open judicial seats on the Franklin/Fulton County Court of Common Pleas each have the backing of local attorneys, and it goes on to explain that the campaign of one candidate is being run by the current District Attorney.  Asked about whether or how that will affect future cases heard by that candidate, PMC Executive Director Lynn A. Marks explained:

“I don’t know of anything legally or ethically wrong with that. . . . It will raise questions if she is elected. Will she be seen as partial to the district attorney’s office? It will raise a question when criminal cases come before her.”

The article explores the candidates’ positions on when recusal — especially in cases involving lawyers assisting the judicial campaign — would be appropriate.  In addition, the article raises the question of campaign fundraising; all of the candidates have accepted campaign contributions from attorneys.  This is permissible under the law and the Code of Judicial Conduct, but it does raise perception problems with the public:

Clients are less likely to understand and accept the process than their attorneys, according to [PMC's Marks]. When you’re in court, you shouldn’t have to worry about whether your attorney gave as much to the judge’s campaign as your opponent’s lawyer, she said.

This is a central problem with the judicial election process. The people who are most involved in the process — including as campaign contributors — are the lawyers who later practice before the judges.  This makes sense, but it may foster the public’s lack of confidence in the ability of the judges to later be impartial when those lawyers appear before them.   We need a better way to select judges.