judgesonmerit.org

Friday’s Times-Tribune op-ed cites the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Citizens United as one more reason in a litany for why Pennsylvania should switch from its current system of electing appellate judges to one of merit selection. As a result of the ruling, corporations and unions will now be permitted to make direct independent expenditures in support or opposition to political campaigns.

This ruling will have a dramatic effect on Pennsylvania appellate court races, in which lawyers and other interested parties already contribute heavily to the campaigns of their favored judicial candidate. Due to the decision, Pennsylvania state laws prohibiting direct expenditures on campaign electioneering, intended to limit flow of money into political races, have been effectively nullified. Powerful special interest groups will now have an even greater ability to dictate the outcome of judicial elections.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has grave concerns about both the Citizens United decision and about judicial elections in general said,

This rise in judicial campaigning makes last week’s opinion … a problem for an independent judiciary. No state can possibly benefit from having that much money injected into a political campaign.

The Times-Tribune added,

Unlike members of the executive or legislative branches, judges are supposed to be neutral. The potential infusion of millions of dollars of corporate money into judicial campaigns adds new urgency to the need for Pennsylvania to take money out of the judicial selection process through merit selection…

Trackback URI | Comments RSS