judgesonmerit.org

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.

Tuesday’s primary election included a number of judicial races. In terms of statewide seats, there were openings on the Superior and Commonwealth Courts. For the Superior Court seat, Harrisburg lawyer Vic Stabile won the GOP primary. In the general election he will face Allegheny Judge David Wecht, who ran unopposed in the Democratic primary. New Hope lawyer Anne Covey won the GOP primary for the open seat on the Commonwealth Court, but her opponent has not yet been determined. The Democratic primary is still too close to call, featuring Doylestown lawyer Kathryn Boockvar and Pittsburgh lawyer Barbara Behrend Ernsberger. Boockvar is the candidate backed by the party, and she received a rating of “Recommended” from the PA Bar Association. The PA Bar Association rated Ernsberger “Not Recommended.”

Locally, there are ten seats open on the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. Only eight candidates ran on the Republican ticket, so they all receive spots in the general election. They are – Jim Divergilis, Fran Shields, Ted J. Vigilante, Anne Marie B. Coyle, Maria McLaughlin, Kenneth J. Powell Jr., Sayde J. Ladov, and Charles Ehrlich. Of those, only Shields did not also run on the Democratic ticket. The ten leading vote getters in the Democratic party were Sean Kennedy, Jonathan Q. Irvine, Angelo J. Foglietta, Maria McLaughlin, Diana Anhalt, Vincent L. Johnson, Barbara M. McDermott, Carolyn H. Nichols, Edward C. Wright, and Charles Erlich. Seven of these ten were endorsed by the Democratic City Committee. In the Municipal Court primary, Democratic City Committee backed Marvin Williams won. There was no Republican candidate for Municipal Court judge.

Many other local judicial races took place across the state.

At a February 12th meeting in Harrisburg, Republican State Committee members endorsed candidates for open seats on two statewide appellate court.  Bucks County lawyer Anne Covey was the GOP committee’s choice for an opening on the Commonwealth Court; former Cumberland County Republican Committee Chairman Vic Stabile received an endorsement for a seat on the Superior Court. Both candidates were rated as “Recommended” by the Judicial Evaluation Commission of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Philadelphia County Judges Paula Patrick and Paul Panepinto were also nominated for the open Superior Court seat, but neither candidate was able to garner enough support to win the party endorsement. Both judges indicated that they planned to stay on the ballot.

Current Judge Johnny Butler, who was appointed to the Commonwealth Court by Governor Ed Rendell, has told party leaders that he won’t run in the primary.

The endorsements came a week after the Democratic State Committee announced its judicial endorsements.

Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro Cortes announced today that the first ever statewide vote recount will be held to determine the winners for Superior Court. According to a press release available on Capitol Wire:

Act 97 of 2004 provides that any statewide race or ballot question where the margin of victory was less than one-half of 1 percent of the total number of votes cast for that office or ballot question would trigger a recount in all 67 counties. The act also allows affected candidates to submit a written request to opt out of a recount.

This affects three candidates — Democrats Robert Coleville and Kevin McCarthy and Republican Templeton Smith, Jr., all of whom are trailing Democrat Anne Lazarus within the margin of voters that triggers the recount.  Coleville and McCarthy voluntarily opted out of the recount, but Smith did not do so, even after being granted an extension of time in which to consider whether to opt out.

The recount will begin November 18 and must be completed by November 25, with results to be submitted by November 30. Secretary Cortes estimates that the recount may cost up to $1.3 million.

The Associated Press reported that a runoff election for the 4^th seat on the state Superior Court could begin this coming Monday, unless one of the three trailing candidates, Temp Smith, waives his right to the recount by tomorrow.

State law provides that an automatic recount is triggered if any candidate trails the winner by less than one-half of 1 percent, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. All three trailing candidates would have to waive their right to a recount to stop the automatic process. To date, two of the three (Allegheny County Judge Robert J. Colville (D) and Allegheny County Assistant District Attorney Kevin F. McCarthy (D)) have sent in letters saying that they will waive their rights if all the others do as well.  Mt. Lebanon lawyer Temp Smith (R) is the only candidate who has not yet waived. If the elections results stand, Judge Anne Lazarus (D) will take the 4^th seat, leading 5^th place contender Judge Colville by a mere 2,006 votes.

Judge Colville explained his reasoning for deciding to waive his right in his letter, cited by the Post-Gazette; he does not believe there was any fraud or error, and a recount is therefore unlikely to change the results. And,

‘More importantly, I am advised that the cost of the recount is estimated at approximately $1.3 million, which cost would be borne by Pennsylvania taxpayers,’ he wrote. ‘In these troubled economic times, it would be unacceptable for me to elevate my personal professional aspirations above legitimate considerations of prudent government fiscal management.’”

We’ll keep you posted on developments.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today explores whether voters can sort through and make decisions about nine candidates running for the Superior Court, one of two intermediate appellate courts in Pennsylvania:

There are 15 positions on the Superior Court bench, and four are open this year.

But in a judicial race like this, it is likely that voters know little about the nine candidates from around the state who are vying for a seat.

“The person who really wants to be responsible about it really has to work hard,” Ms. Goodman [of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts] said.

That means reading online profiles, seeking out bar association recommendations and watching available debates.

But G. Terry Madonna, a political analyst at Franklin & Marshall College, doesn’t expect much of that to happen this year.

“These candidates will not be known to the voters,” he said. “They won’t recognize their names, let alone what they stand for.”

This is troubling, because it can discourage voters from participating in these elections.  Traditionally, voter turn-out in judicial election years is low.  And, many who do show up to vote for other offices, such as District Attorney or County Commissioner, often throw up their hands and decide to leave the judicial section of the ballot blank.

The problem is, the decision about who serves on our appellate courts is very important.

That’s why Ms. Goodman’s organization supports judicial merit selection rather than election of judges.

“Judges have a really important role in our society,” she said. “Their decisions affect everybody. The courts have far-reaching power, and voters don’t really think about that until they are in court.”

2009 is a judicial election year in Pennsylvania.  It will be a busy one here, as Pennsylvanians will be electing a Supreme Court Justice, three Superior Court judges, two Commonwealth Court judges, and many more trial level judges.

We’ll be watching and keeping track of the money, and waiting to see if the United States Supreme Court changes the rules of the game  as it considers and decides Caperton v. Massey. We’re anticipating that 2009 will break the fundraising records set in 2007, when four candidates for the Supreme Court raised almost eight million dollars.

As this all proceeds, we will continue to work to bring Merit Selection to the appellate courts, and hope that some time in the near future there will be an election that gives the people of Pennsylvania the chance to vote on whether to change the way we choose our appellate court judges.

Yesterday’s Metro featured an article about the effort to bring Merit Selection to Pennsylvania. While the article identified some of the problems of judicial elections and some of the benefits of Merit Selection, it mistakenly implied that the current Merit Selection legislation would affect all courts in Pennsylvania. The fact is, we are working for Merit Selection of the three statewide appellate courts only.

There are three appellate courts in Pennsylvania — the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts. There are 31 appellate judges, out of a total of 1,048 judges in Pennsylvania.

The problems with judicial elections — the lack of emphasis on candidates’ qualifications, the huge sums of money raised from parties likely to appear before the judges in the future, and the lack of opportunities for qualified candidates of all backgrounds — are more pronounced at the level of the appellate courts.

As a result, the current reform effort is focused on changing the way we select this part of the judiciary. The trial courts, including the Courts of Common Pleas, Municipal Courts, Magisterial District Judge Courts, and Traffic Courts, would not be affected.