judgesonmerit.org

For many years, money has been a big issue in judicial elections.  Who’s giving campaign money to which candidate is already becoming a topic of interest for this fall’s Alabama Supreme Court election.

Campaign finance reports show that political action committees (PACs) driven by pro-business lobbyists account for the vast majority of the money raised for Republican Supreme Court candidate Greg Shaw. A significant percent of the money contributed to the campaign of Lauderdale County District Judge Deborah Bell Paseur, Shaw’s Democratic opponent, has come from law firms, individual attorneys and individuals.

Even the candidates recognize the problems with this system.  Shaw explained that enormous campaign contributions make voters wary: “There is a perception in Alabama that justice is for sale in this state. . . . That strikes at the very heart of the confidence level that Alabamians have in the Supreme Court.”

Large campaign contributions erode the voters’ confidence in their court system in Alabama and other states that hold judicial elections, including Pennsylvania. As Bert Brandenburg of Justice At Stake explained:

[P]olls show the public believes campaign contributions influence the outcome of court opinions. And a poll by the National Center for State Courts showed one in four state judges had the same opinion. “When the insiders feel like money is making a difference,” he said, “that’s pretty scary.”

Eliminating fundraising from judicial selection is a big reason to support adopting a Merit Selection system for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

On July 1, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts issues a press release about the newly confirmed interim appointments to four appellate court vacancies. Executive Director Lynn Marks echoed the sentiment reflected in yesterday’s post: “We must be clear about this. Despite the fact that this process involved nomination by the governor and confirmation by the Senate, it is not the same as Merit Selection.” The press release went on to highlight the differences between the two processes.

The press release concluded: “We hope that disillusionment with the current process and dissatisfaction with the delay that resulted will motivate the public to demand a better way to fill all appellate court vacancies — Merit Selection.”

Governor Rendell’s second slate of nominees to fill interim vacancies on the appellate courts has been confirmed by the state Senate. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan will serve on the Supreme Court; McKean County President Judge John Cleland and Northampton County President Judge Robert Freedberg will serve on the Superior Court; and Philadelphia lawyer Johnny Butler will serve on the Commonwealth Court. The judges will serve until January 2010, when new judges elected in the fall 2009 elections will be sworn in. The newly confirmed judges each have pledged not to run for full terms in the 2009 elections.

Filling these vacancies was a long and politically contentious process. Although the new judges, like the previous nominees, are highly regarded, the process by which they came to the bench was not Merit Selection. There are two major differences between the current interim appointment process and Merit Selection.

First, the current process does not use an independent nominating commission to evaluate candidates and recommend the most qualified to the Governor. Instead, the Governor, working with legislative leaders, devises a list of candidates.

Second, the current process does not involve a role for the public. Under Merit Selection, after the judge serves for a brief initial term, the public votes in a retention election on whether or not the judge should continue in office. By contrast, in the current interim appointment process, the judges serve only for a short time and pledge not to seek a full term. This is the political deal that must be made to secure confirmation, and it deprives the public of an opportunity to evaluate the judges and of longer service by good judges.

We are pleased that the long vacant appellate court seats will be filled, but we regret that we are still using a political process that is part and parcel of the electoral system to do so.

A June 29th editorial in Jackson, Mississippi’s Clarion-Ledger shows how wealthy interests on either side of a single issue - tort reform - have twisted elections for the state’s Supreme Court. These elections have become a million-dollar sparring ground, where big bank accounts battle to influence judicial policy, and the interests of ordinary citizens and impartial justice are consigned to the bleachers.

Both sides - plaintiffs’ attorneys and the business/medical community - have too much riding on the outcome of cases not to spend big bucks on these campaigns. Left out and ignored, however, are the poor, the voiceless and those who don’t have enough money for political action committees or lobbyists.

When judicial elections become multi-million dollar endeavors, winning a seat on the bench can become a fundraising contest. Smart, fair-minded and experienced candidates are locked out of the system if they can’t generate the level of donations necessary to compete.

Opponents of judicial selection reform like to present themselves as the champions of the people, fighting to preserve the rights of citizens. But often, what they’re really trying to protect is the ability of wealthy campaign donors to decide who makes it to the bench.

Merit Selection of appellate judges short-circuits the influence of big campaign donations. Because candidates are evaluated on their knowledge and experience, Merit Selection gives qualified people who can’t raise gobs of campaign cash a shot at becoming a judge. The appellate bench will be open to people from all backgrounds, and all areas of the state, with knowledge of and respect for the law as the primary criteria for membership.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson is worried about reelection. The vote won’t be held until next year, but in the aftermath of the record-setting 2007 and 2008 Wisconsin judicial elections, she’s already lining up bipartisan support and trying to raise funds. Neatly summing up the problems with judicial elections, her fundraising committee wrote:

“After the last two judicial campaigns, you probably don’t need a sermon on what’s wrong with the way we elected judges in this state, or the embarrassingly small number of people who vote in judicial elections, or the tenor and content of the campaign advertisements sponsored by some organizations… We all know how powerful those 30-second ads can be.”

Judicial elections are getting more expensive everywhere; just think what will happen in Pennsylvania next year.

Even one nasty judicial election would have lasting negative consequences, warns Minnesota’s new chief justice, Eric J. Magnuson.

Our citizens trust our judicial system but what happens when you have even one big, nasty, highly-politicized judicial election concerns me greatly,” he said. ”Perceptions of fairness, equity and access I think will be dramatically undermined if the public’s confidence erodes and it only takes one big campaign to do that.

Magnuson argues that Minnesota needs to switch from judicial elections to a system of “retention elections,” as espoused by the commission headed by former Gov. Al Quie. Under the Quie commission plan, a Merit Selection commission would prepare a list of judges, from which the governor would make his appointments. Ultimately, after an initial term in office, the judges would stand before the public in retention elections and it is the voters who have the final say whether to keep or to fire the appointed judge.

If these changes aren’t made, Magnuson predicts that Minnesota will have to endure what Wisconsin suffered last month.

Millions of dollars were spent by special interest groups on ads attacking the candidates as freeing criminals or engaging in political cronyism,” Magnuson said. ”Well-heeled special interests attempting to manipulate the judicial process are no longer the stuff of fictional thrillers written by John Grisham. It’s reality. It’s reality that’s right next door.

It’s also becoming a reality in Pennsylvania, as elections become more and more expensive and attract money from out-of-state special interest groups.

Minnesota is bracing itself for increasingly negative and expensive judicial elections. Tapped by the State Bar Association to be the Chairman of the Judicial Election Campaign Conduct Committee, attorney David Stowman will try to prevent the elections from turning ugly and partisan.

Stowman points out that judicial elections should be different than other elections. “Judges do not have a constituency, they are more like a referee.” This essential role is threatened by one of the biggest problems with judicial elections: the influence of money and the buying of influence. “Certainly none of us would want to be sitting in front of a judge that had taken large campaign contributions from the other side of the counsel table,” he said.

States that have judicial elections, like Minnesota and our own Pennsylvania, should expect judicial elections to become increasingly expensive and nasty. Stowman hopes that the Judicial Election Campaign Conduct Committee will only be temporary, and that Minnesota will move away from judicial elections. Some are calling for Merit Selection. By removing the money, Merit Selection provides a cleaner, more dignified process.

Link to story; free, requires registration.

A group called Johnson Countians for Justice is fighting to keep its Merit Selection system for selecting local judges. This fall, a ballot initiative will propose eliminating the Merit Selection system and replacing it with partisan elections. Johnson Countians for Justice recently held a press conference to highlight the importance of the issue and has unveiled a well-researched website with great information for concerned voters. Here’s an excerpt from their FAQ, explaining why Kansas Counties that use Merit Selection actually allow more voter input in judicial selection than those that elect their judges:

In the 2004 Kansas general election of judicial partisan elections, only 15 out of 85 had more than one candidate on the ballot. In contrast, the voters in judicial districts with the merit selection process have the right vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to retain all of the judges in that district. Even in the 2006 primary election, only 8 of the 34 partisan elected judges had opposition.

We will follow this effort in the coming months and we wish Johnson Countians for Justice well in their fight to protect Merit Selection.

Late last week, Governor Rendell nominated a new slate to fill interim vacancies on Pennsylvania’s appellate courts. From early reports, it seems likely that the new slate — Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan for the Supreme Court, Northampton County President Judge Robert A. Freedberg and McKean County President Judge John M. Cleland for Superior Court, and Philadelphia lawyer Johnny J. Butler for Comonwealth Court — will be confirmed in the near future. This follows months of political wrangling and the Senate’s rejection of the Governor’s first slate of nominees.

PMC/PMCAction Executive Director Lynn Marks warns: “This interim appointment process should not be confused with what is known as a merit selection system just because both require nomination by the Governor and Senate confirmation. . . . They are both very different and the jockeying we have seen for the last few months is another example of why we should change the way we appoint appellate judges.”

Merit Selection of judges in Tennessee involves a 3-part system of Merit Selection, judicial performance evaluation, and retention elections. Judges are nominated for gubernatorial appointment by a 17-member Judicial Selection Commission (14 lawyers and 3 non-lawyer citizens). Appellate judges stand for retention election every 8 years.

The Tennessee Plan has been in place since the early 1970s and is also known as the “Modified Missouri Plan.” It’s “winding down” this year, because the Tennessee legislature failed to reauthorize it, mostly because of allegations of too much secrecy in the meetings of the Judicial Selection Commission.

But the way to address the problems is not to scrap the Tennessee Plan and replace it with elections, says Governor Phil Bredesen — and we agree. Tennessee risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As Governor Bredesen suggests, perceived problems of secrecy and alleged “back-room dealing” can be addressed by amending the statute to require additional public meetings of the Commission. As the Governor explains, putting a worse system in place is not the answer:

The issue is that when you have state-wide elections, basically for appellate judges, the only people who care about those are people with very narrow special interests. They’re expensive elections because they’re state-wide, and I just think you’d have this scramble to have, you know, every interest out there whether it be business or trial lawyers or anybody else trying to elect their judges and we’d have a vastly worse system than we have today.

The problem in Tennessee isn’t secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms. That flimsy accusation is mostly a “smokescreen” itself for the special interests who seek to inject even more politics — and potentially millions of dollars — into Tennessee’s judicial selection system.