judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in the Austin American-Statesman minces no words in pointing out a major problem caused by electing judges:

Elections mean money. Money means problems. Elections and money and judges mean, at the least, a damaging perception of big problems. . . .

[The campaign contributions involved in Caperton] seem[ed] like a prudent investment. But we don’t think judicial races should attract investments. The American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, cited in the U.S. Supreme Court opinion, says “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”

How do you do that when you have to raise money. . . to run for judge in Texas?

This is a good question, and it’s one we all should be asking in Pennsylvania.  Of course, the answer to that question raises another pressing question:  if the electoral process is itself undermining public confidence in the courts and the judiciary, what can we do about it?

The editorial notes that there is something we can do:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling does not force Texas to do anything about picking judges. But it’s another reminder that the system warrants review.

“It will be on litigants’ minds,” former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Phillips said of the decision. “They’ll ask their lawyer, ‘Did the other side give money to the judge? I read in the paper you can do something about that.’ ”

And now you’re reading in the paper that there is something we all should do about that. Texas’ judicial selection system should be changed.

Voters in Pennsylvania can do something, too.  Legislation has been introduced to change the state constitution to implement Merit Selection for the appellate courts. This would get appellate court judges out of the fundraising business.  We can only amend the constitution if the legislature twice passes the amendment and the public votes for it.  So, there is something we can do.  Let’s do it.

Texas is looking at this year’s election results — where 22 of 26 Republican incumbent judges were voted off the bench — and remembering 1994, when all but one democratic incumbent judge were ousted.  The Houston Chronicle reports that while some folks are gearing up for the next round of elections, others are renewing their calls for changing how judges are selected.

Just listen to what current Texas Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson is saying:

This is a strange way to select those who guard our legal rights. . . . It is time to decide whether partisan election is the best means to ensure judicial competence.

Jefferson is joined by former Texas Chief Justice Tom Phillips who long has supported implementing a Merit Selection system for Texas.  According to Phillips, making elections nonpartisan will not solve the problems inherent in judicial electiosn, “including the involvement of special-interest groups, the need to raise money and curry votes, and the lack of voter knowledge of judicial candidates.”

We share the concerns of these Texas leaders and wish them luck.  We recognize that the problems inherent in partisan judicial elections are getting worse, not better, and we hope that Pennsylvania will have the opportunity to choose Merit Selection as a better way to select appellate judges.