judgesonmerit.org

As we noted earlier this week, there is some talk in Virginia of changing the way judges are selected. Currently, they are appointed by the legislature.  An editorial in the dailypress.com approves of the Lieutenant Governor’s proposal to use a commission-based appointment system and outlines the benefits of nominating commissions:

Judges should not be politicians. A commission-based selection process by a broad-based group that examines the experience and credentials of candidates, conducts interviews and evaluates candidates’ fitness for service is more likely to produce an impartial and well-qualified judiciary than elections or legislative appointments.  A system that also includes retention votes makes judges accountable to the people at large for upholding the standards of integrity and conduct required by the position.

These are some of the very reasons we believe Pennsylvanians should consider implementing a Merit Selection system for the appellate courts.  We hope the people of Pennsylvania will soon have the opportunity to weigh in on this issue.

Recently, we reported that a debate was held in Minnesota about whether to change the way judges are selected.  Now, we’re reading that similar debates are being held and questions raised about judicial selection in Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.  While each of these states is different and has its own unique experiences in the judicial selection arena, the critical point is that the issue is being publicly discussed.  These discussions are important steps in the lengthy process of changing how judges are selected.  It is essential that the public be engaged and have the opportunity to debate and discuss the issue.

We know Pennsylvanians have strong views about how judges should be selected, and we also know that Pennsylvanians want the opportunity to decide if there is a better way to select judges than the current electoral process. Merit Selection bills are pending in both houses of the legislature, and it anticipated that the House Judiciary Committee will reschedule the public hearing that was initially scheduled for November.

We hope that Pennsylvania will soon be talking about judicial selection as well.  It is time.

Judges in Virginia are chosen by legislative appointment. Recently, partisan divisions between the two chambers of the General Assembly have held up filling two open seats on the state’s Supreme Court. According to an editorial in the May 4th Virginian-Pilot, “Democrats control the Senate; Republicans run the House. Both sides must agree on bench selections, and mature conversations are distressingly scarce around the state Capitol.”

What solution does the paper propose to end the political gridlock? Urging Virginia to dial down the politics in its judicial selection system, by switching to Merit Selection.

Virginia and South Carolina are the only two states in which legislators choose judges. More flawed methods exist, particularly in states where judges raise money and air negative ads in partisan elections.

But Virginia’s lawmakers seem determined to prove they are no longer capable of handling this important task.

Thirty-four states employ some form of merit selection, in which nominating commissions screen would-be jurists. In most cases, the governor makes the final decision.

The merits of the candidates for the Virginia Supreme Court are not in question in this instance. All of them hold impressive credentials. But the merits of those legislators who want this important responsibility, yet somehow can’t manage to handle it, are increasingly under a cloud. It’s time to consider a change.

An editorial in the Roanoke Times calls on Virigina to move away from its system of having the legislature appoint judges and find a better way to pick judges. The preferred method is Merit Selection. Why? “Electing judges, even in nonpartisan elections, is problematic because it forces judges to engage in fundraising and campaigning, either of which can raise questions about a judge’s impartiality.”

Well put. And as the editorial recognizes, “setting up an effective system for merit appointment, free of political influence, is not exactly an easy task.” We’re working on it for the appellate courts of Pennsylvania, because the public deserves the most qualified, fair and impartial judges — and those who are perceived by all to be so. And the best way to get them is to keep them out of the fundraising business.