judgesonmerit.org

The Times Leader reports that for the six seats available on the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, five of seven candidates have secured dual-party nominations. The lucky five, in the order they will appear on the ballot, are Joseph Sklarosky Jr., Michael Vough, Fred Pierantoni, Lesa Gelb and Jennifer Rogers. Number one on the ballot will be Richard Hughes, the recipient of the most Republican votes and last will be Democrat Molly Hanlon Mirabito, who has the advantage in a county with more registered Democrats than Republicans. Susan Kolesar, a supporter of Gelb, professes that “it is really anybody’s game to lose,” but notes that the two single-party candidates will need to “spend a lot of money” to get a seat.

However, beyond a few standard election determinants – ballot position, party registration, campaign spending – dual-party nominees have a “distinct advantage.” Political consultant, Ed Mitchell says, “In the 20 years I’ve been doing judicial campaigns in Luzerne and Lackawanna counties, I’ve not seen anyone who won dual party nominations in the primary not get elected to the bench in the General.” Likewise, Professor David Sosar agrees that while “‘theoretically possible’ for one of the dual nominees to lose, [defeat is] ‘highly unlikely.’”

Mitchell explains the trend by the high number of straight-party voters. In the municipal general election of 2009, 57.2 percent of Democratic and 38.4 percent of Republican voters cast a straight party ballot. Professor Chris Borick elaborates: candidates who appear on both tickets can collect the straight-party votes, which “boosts the chances of winning.”

Ultimately, election criteria yet again depend on factors unrelated to qualifications. Securing a dual-party nomination in a primary in which few citizens vote and independent and minor-party voters cannot participate fails to measure up as a deliberate and intelligent decision-making process. Instead, Merit Selection can achieve a fair and impartial judiciary by focusing on qualifications instead of political gaming.

In an article in the Times-Leader, Terrie Morgan-Besecker asks whether local judicial candidates should accept campaign contributions from attorneys. Focusing on the Luzerne County judicial election, the article notes that 13 of 16 candidates in the upcoming primary are accepting contributions from attorneys. There are six open seats.

As of May 6, 11 of the 13 candidates accepting attorney donations had collected a total of $58,571 in individual donations of $250 or more. Individual donations of less than $250 do not show the occupation of the donor. Over 70 attorneys have made contributions of $250 or more, and the majority of those lawyers practice in Luzerne and or Lackawanna counties. Most of the donations fall in the $500-$1,000 range. The candidates accepting attorney donations and their supporters point out that campaign fundraising is a reality of seeking political office, and that without fundraising only the wealthy would be capable of running.

Although the candidates accepting attorney contributions insist that it will not affect their fairness and impartiality on the bench, the three candidates refusing to accept attorney donations point out that even if that is true it is not the public’s perception. These candidates – Mike Blazick, Molly Hanlon Mirabito, and Lesa Gelb – note the public’s lack of trust in the court system and insist that: “trust can’t be restored if there’s any question that a judge’s impartiality might be impacted by contributions.” Gelb points out that: “People equate money in the courtroom with bias and impropriety” and Blazick explains: “[y]ou can’t restore confidence in the courts by taking money from those who appear in the courts every day.”

Yesterday’s call by Governor Rendell for the legislature to pass the pending Merit Selection bills has got Pennsylvania talking.  An editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News shares the Governor’s sense of urgency to pass the legislation and argues: “Imagine if judges didn’t have to rely on the kindness of ward leaders, or the luck of ballot position.”

In addition, the Philadelphia Inquirer has a full report on the news conference and quotes the Governor’s exclamation that there is “no excuse for not moving the legislation this year and putting the question on the ballot by late 2011.” The Inquirer also quoted PMC Executive Director Lynn Marks who explained that Merit Selection is designed to get the most qualified, fair and independent people on the appellate courts.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette notes that the Governor is seeking to give a jumpstart to the Merit Selection legislation.  The article quotes local State Senator Jim Ferlo on the need for reform: “The impact of the electoral system on the impartiality of judges puts the fairness of our courts in question, and now requires judicial candidates … to raise millions of dollars to run their campaigns.”

Additional coverage of the Governor’s press conference and the call for action can be found at WHYY 91 FM, the Citizens’ Voice, the Times Leader, the Patriot-News, and Gavel Grab.

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overturning two Court precedents and effectively striking down decades of law intended to keep corporate money from influencing elections. After yesterday’s ruling corporations and unions will be allowed to spend money from their treasuries to directly advocate for particular political candidates.

Here’s what the local papers had to say:

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the 5-4 decision proved a victory for the Court’s conservative bloc, who maintained that a ban on corporate spending violated the First Amendment right to free speech. Most democrats, including President Obama, condemned the decision. In his dissent, Justice Stevens warned that the ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.”

In a separate article, the Inquirer focused on what the decision will mean for Pennsylvania. Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts’ Deputy Director Shira Goodman predicted that yesterday’s ruling will “open the floodgates to direct corporate and union spending in statewide judicial elections.”

The Post-Gazette noted that the decision likely will cause Pennsylvania to change its own laws to now permit private corporations to spend their own money on political campaigns. PMC warned of the negative implications the decision could have on judicial races, a point conspicuously absent from the Court’s majority opinion.

The Times Leader quoted Goodman as well, underscoring the worry that the additional influx of money could affect the impartiality of state judges: “Today’s decision will only intensify those concerns by making it easier for corporations and unions that frequently litigate in the state courts to participate in electing the judges who will decide their cases.”

For a media round-up…

It’s not often that candidates running for judge criticize the electoral system and urge judicial selection reform — even if they think change is needed, judicial candidates usually don’t choose to bash the system they’re working within.  But a lawyer running for the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas has decided to speak his mind.

The Times Leader reports that Mike Blazick urged judicial selection reform during his talk with the editorial board:

The current system rewards candidates who have the best fundraising skills, political connections and/or personal wealth,” Blazick said. “Fundraising skills, personal wealth and political connections have no relevance to whether a person can be a good judge.”

Blazick also stated that his campaign is not accepting contributions from attorneys:

“We must remove the taint of the transfer of money from attorneys to the judiciary if we truly want to restore the public’s confidence in our system,” Blazick said. “Attorney contributions create an inherent conflict of interest that is damaging to the integrity of our courts.”

Campaign contributions –from attorneys and from individuals and organizations that frequently litigate in the state courts — do create a perception among the public that “justice is for sale.”  Getting judges out of the fundraising business is a major advantage of Merit Selection over elections.

We agree with Blazick that change is needed and are happy to see a judicial candidate publicly acknowledge that the current system doesn’t make a lot of sense.  We suspect that other candidates privately share his views.  We hope they will also speak out and urge the public and the legislature to consider much needed judicial selection reform.

Right now, a major judicial scandal continues to unfold in Luzerne County, PA where two judges have pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from their having allegedly taken money to divert many juvenile offenders to a specific detention facility.  Other court officials have also been implicated, and the investigation is ongoing. Earlier this week, the Times Leader examined the sources of campaign contributions to the two judges at the center of the scandal.

The report reveals some troubling information: Although one of the judges, Michael Conahan, claimed to be campaigning without taking money from lawyers, when he ran for retention ten years later, he retired all his original campaign debt in large part from contributions by lawyers. This despite his earlier pledge that:

“This will guarantee that there will not even be the chance that when I am hearing a case, my mind could in any way be clouded between the arguments of a lawyer who contributed to my campaign and perhaps an opposing one who didn’t.”

Conahan’s counterpart, Mark Ciavarella also is without campaign debt, due in large part to contributions by lawyers and law firms.

It’s no surprise that lawyers and law firms are big contributors to judicial elections, but it is of great concern to those who believe that perception is important.  Conahan himself identified the potential problems arising from lawyer contributions to judicial campaigns.  Recent surveys and studies make clear that the public is worried about the impact of campaign contributions on judicial decision-making.  Those worries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our courts.  And that’s dangerous for all of us.

The article concludes with a suggestion from some lawyers at a firm that contributed heavily to the Conahan campaign:

Representatives of [the firm] said lawyers are tapped for donations in many campaigns, not just judicial ones. The lawyers say a switch to merit selection of judges would eliminate the demand for contributions in expensive judicial races.

That makes sense — it’s time to get judges out of the fundraising business altogether.

The Times Leader, serving Northeastern Pennsylvania, published a commentary piece by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts this weekend addressing how to increase public confidence in our courts.  There has been a string of cases involving judges getting into criminal and/or ethical trouble, most recently a scandal involving two judges in Luzerne County.  PMC offered three suggestions for restoring public confidence:

First, our judicial discipline system must be strong, independent, willing and able to mete out strict discipline when necessary – even if it means stripping someone of the privilege of serving as a judge. . . .  Second, our bar leaders and court leadership should express outrage – on behalf of the people – at criminal and unethical conduct by judges. . . . Finally, Pennsylvanians should move forward with a constitutional amendment to change the way we select judges.

The third suggestion requires systemic reform, legislative action and broad public support.  We believe the outcome would be worth the effort:

We already know that many Pennsylvanians are concerned about the pernicious effect of money in judicial campaigns. We must get money out of the system of selecting judges and focus on qualifications, experience and the highest ethical standards. Elections, unfortunately, don’t emphasize these factors. We need a system that does.

An editorial introducing our piece called our suggestions “worth studying.”  We hope that Pennsylvanians will agree that it’s time to look for real solutions.