judgesonmerit.org

It is hard to amend the Pennsylvania constitution.  Doing so requires passing the same piece of legislation twice — once each during successive two year sessions.  That’s only the beginning.  After second passage, the question goes on the ballot, where the people vote in a referendum on whether to approve the amendment.  This takes a long time and a lot of effort and  consideration.  And that’s entirely as it should be — amending the constitution deserves careful scrutiny and attention.

We think it’s time to get this process started so that the people of Pennsylvania can decide whether to change the way we select appellate court judges.  We’re in the early stages — we’re just working for the first consideration of Merit Selection legislation by the legislature.  But this would start the dialogue in Pennsylvania about a critical issue.

We welcome such a discussion.  We think it’s long overdue.  And we  know  many Pennsylvanians do as well.  So, we hope the legislature will get it started so that Pennsylvanians can ultimately make this important decision for themselves.

A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial about recent decisions by the Court of Judicial Discipline calls for a public referendum on changing the way we select judges in Pennsylvania:

[These cases] should serve as yet another rallying cry for voter referendums on judicial reform to switch to merit-based appointment for the city courts, as well as the state’s appellate bench.

We are advocating judicial selection reform only at the appellate level, but the Inquirer makes a good point about the relationship between the judicial selection system and the recent judicial discipline cases that have been in the news:

As cases like these expose judicial misconduct, citizens have to hope Harrisburg lawmakers will let voters decide on reforming judicial selection under the state constitution.

Merit-based appointment not only would focus on candidates’ qualifications more than political backing, but also would yield a more diverse bench.

Voters would get the chance to approve judges for additional terms, but they would have a better idea about those worth keeping and judges who should hang up their robes.

We hope that as Pennsylvanians continue to learn more about the courts and the judicial selection process, they will agree that it’s time to ask again whether we’re using the best system to choose our judges.

The News-Leader in Springfield, MO, has come out in favor of Merit Selection for Greene County.  Describing the reasons the editorial board is supporting the change from partisan elections, the editorial first quotes a former local attorney:

[T]he current partisan system for electing judges in Greene County just doesn’t feel right. . . .  ‘It puts lawyers in a really bad position,’ [Shawn] Askinosie said, ‘and, frankly, it puts judges in a really bad position, too.’

That opinion, from a lawyer-turned-businessman who really had nothing to gain when he recently decided to speak to our Community Editorial Advisory Board, is not to be dismissed lightly.

It helped sway us toward support for a new way of selecting judges in Greene County.

Although we are advocating reform only at the appellate level in Pennsylvania, we are watching the events in Greene County.  We wish the reformers luck in their upcoming referendum, and we hope Pennsylvanians will soon get their own chance to weigh in on how we should select appellate judges.

Merit Selection supporters gathered in Harrisburg yesterday for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman of PMC and PMCAction were joined by former Superior Court Judge Phyllis W. Beck and representatives of civic groups, business organizations, and lawyers and bar associations in advocating for adoption of Merit Selection for the Pennsylvania appellate courts. A full list of those who presented testimony and copies of written submissions are available on our Report on the Senate Hearing page.

At the beginning of the hearing, Senator Jane Earll, prime sponsor of the Merit Selection legislation, expressed her reasons for supporting judicial selection reform:”I believe a better court, a more diverse court will result in a system that isn’t dependent on money and ballot positions.”

Coalition members testified about the problems inherent in electing judges, particularly the increasing expenses associated with judicial campaigns and the negative perceptions caused by fundraising by judicial candidates.  Marks, executive director of PMC and PMCAction explained, “The current electoral system — with its emphasis on fundraising and campaign prowess — is broken and is undermining public confidence in the judiciary and our courts.  The solution that is best designed to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the appellate bench and to get those juges out of the fundraising business is Merit Selection.”

In addition, coalition partners explained that Merit Selection offers greater opportunities for qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds to reach the appellate bench.  Edward Lanza, board member of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Central Pennsylvania told the Committee: “We’re persuaded the Merit Selection process would be more likely to elevate qualified minority candidates to the appellate bench.”

Senator Earll and Senator Mary Jo White actively questioned those presenting testimony.  In response to comments that Merit Selection supporters aim to disenfranchise voters, Senator White explained:

I object to that statement about the franchise. I believe in the franchise and so does Sandra Day O’Connor [who is a supporter of Merit Selection]. . . . In my experience, the current system discriminates against people who can’t raise large amounts of money to run campaigns — women, those from small counties and minorities.  This tries to level the playing field.

Gene Barr, Vice President for Government Relations of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry agreed, explaining the Merit Selection legislation “is giving Pennsylvanians the opportunity to decide if they want to change the process” of how they select appellate judges.  On this very issue Senator White noted:

1969 [when last a referendum was held on this issue] was forty years ago.  A lot has changed in that time, the money, television ads, out of state money. . . Let’s ask the people again.  It shows a lot of confidence in the voters to ask “are you confident in voting for appellate court judges?”

We thank Senator Greenleaf and the Judiciary Committee for holding this hearing.  We hope it will be the first step in an ongoing dialogue about how we select appellate court judges — a dialogue that will culiminate with giving the people of Pennsylvania the opportunity to decide for themselves.

In an editorial in today’s Patriot-News, we make the case for Merit Selection of appellate court judges: Merit Selection “gets appellate judges out of the fundraising business and emphasizes qualifications. It opens pathways to the bench for qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds. This should give Pennsylvanians more confidence in the ability, fairness and impartiality of appellate courts.”

We explain the lengthy constitutional amendment process, which culminates in a public referendum. We emphasize that only the people of Pennsylvania can decide — by voting in a referendum — to change the way we pick appellate court judges.

The editorial closes with an appeal to get this issue before the people: “It’s time to let Pennsylvanians decide whether expensive, partisan elections are the best way to pick appellate court judges. Legislators should be encouraged to pass this proposed constitutional amendment and put merit selection on the ballot so that we — the voters of Pennsylvania — can decide for ourselves how to choose appellate court judges.”

On Friday, April 4th, Dan Pero of AmericanCourthouse.com posted two items critical of our perspective on judicial selection of appellate judges in Pennsylvania. We’ve said all along that reasonable people can disagree about judicial selection. We started this blog to encourage discussion about the subject, and we’re gratified that Mr. Pero believes the issue to be important. However, we wish he would stop trying to mislead his readers.

In his swipes at Merit Selection, Mr. Pero returns again and again to the same hollow argument. He insists there is a conspiracy afoot to “take away” the right of the citizens of Pennsylvania to vote for appellate judges.

No matter how many times Mr. Pero and other critics of Merit Selection repeat this mantra, no one can take away the current elective system from the citizens of Pennsylvania. The state Constitution can only be amended after the voters pass a referendum to authorize the change. Like other Merit Selection critics, Mr. Pero ignores this fact.

We can only adopt a Merit Selection system for Pennsylvania’s appellate judges if the people of Pennsylvania vote for it. The only thing we want to “take away” from the people is the false impression that anyone can implement Merit Selection in Pennsylvania without popular consent.

Last night on 1210 Tonight with Anthony Mazzarelli (WPHT 1210 AM, the Big Talker) Bob Heim, Board Chair of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, and Russ Diamond, founder and chair of PA Clean Sweep, found common ground. Heim and Diamond — who don’t necessarily agree about judicial selection issues — together called for the people of Pennsylvania to have the chance to decide the best way to pick appellate judges. Despite their different perspectives, they each declared that the people should have their say.

Heim and Diamond agreed that there should be a public referendum (the final stage in amending the Constitution) to settle the question of how to choose appellate judges. Big Talker host Anthony “Mazz” Mazzrelli also argued that it’s time to allow Pennsylvanians to determine the best way to pick our appellate judges. To listen to the discussion, you can download the podcast.

Future posts will discuss this further, but PMC and PMCAction want to be clear that changing the way we pick judges is a decision only the voters of Pennsylvania can make. And we trust them to make it.