judgesonmerit.org

John Micek over at Capitol Ideas channels his inner frustrated voter today to ask why we choose our appellate court judges through partisan elections:

Here at Capitol Ideas World HQ, we make up our mind on these races the same way that we imagine most of the Pennsylvania populace does: by furiously perusing the voters’ guide in our local newspaper. And then, moments before we enter the polls, we hastily pick some candidates, pray that they’re qualified, cast our ballots and leave hoping that we haven’t done too much long-term damage to the Republic.

This naturally leads us to the conclusion that there must be some better way to run a railroad — particularly when it comes to choosing crucially important appellate judgeships.

Being an accredited member of the Fourth Estate gives us a bit more insight into judicial candidates than most. But we still can’t help but feel like we’re holding our breath a bit when we enter the voting booth.

And if we feel this way, we have to imagine that many Pennsylvanians feel equally bewildered. And this, of course, leads us to wonder (particularly after the pugilistic state Supreme Court campaign we’ve just witnessed) whether electing judges is such a good idea.

We believe Micek is correct that his hesitation in the voting booth (and his worry about his choices after he leaves the voting booth) are widely shared.  Voting for appellate court judges doesn’t make sense.  There is a better way, a way that focuses on candidates’ qualifications to serve on the bench, eliminates the influence of random factors like ballot position, gender, party affiliation and county of residence, and gets judges out of the fundraising business. That way is Merit Selection.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS