judgesonmerit.org

Iowa has used a merit selection process since 1962. Although their process is not perfect, observing judicial elections in sister states has confirmed for Iowans that they made the right choice. A June 11, 2008, editorial in The Des Moines Register addresses the problem of money in judicial elections:

Candidates must raise big money from potential litigants and law firms, and they wage campaigns that may suggest promising to take certain legal positions in exchange for votes.

This summary hits the nail on the head. No party or attorney wants to try her case against opposing counsel who has made monetary contributions to the presiding judge. No ethical judge will base her decision on which attorney’s pockets were deeper, of course. But the appearance of impropriety threatens to sully any elected judge’s reputation and threatens the judiciary’s unbiased, neutral reputation overall.

As the editorial notes, “Politics cannot be completely removed from judicial selection, but politics should not dominate, lest candidates be expected to make promises about how they will rule.”

We agree with this wise assessment. And though we can’t get politics completely out of the process of selecting appellate court judges, we can get the money out. We should follow Iowa’s good example and choose Merit Selection.

Voices Of Merit is an occasional series featuring insights from places where Merit Selection is already at work.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, Superior Court judges have been chosen by Merit Selection since 1974, after a voter-ratified constitutional change. The court publishes a brochure with the straightforward title Merit Selection Of Judges. It explains how the switch to Merit Selection has helped to create a court of skilled, diverse and fair-minded judges, “free from political debts that supporters may expect to be paid.” These are exactly the goals we have in mind for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

As the campaign for Merit Selection progresses, we hear some inaccurate arguments repeated by those who oppose Merit Selection. In an effort to set the record straight, we’ll reveal the truth and clear up these myths.

Myth #6: Merit Selection supporters want to do away with all elections.

This is a favorite scare tactic of opponents of Merit Selection, usually worded as a question; “While we’re at it, why not replace election of the governor or the legislature with Merit Selection too?” It suggests, falsely, that supporters of Merit Selection of appellate judges plan to somehow create a world where nobody votes for anything, and the entire government is appointed rather than elected.

The truth is that Merit Selection supporters aren’t trying to replace election of all public officials. We think that Merit Selection is a better way to select appellate judges because judges are different from other elected officials. Judges are sworn to act impartially, to apply the law without regard for personal preference, political pressure or the interests of campaign contributors.

Impartiality isn’t a requirement for other officials, like governors, senators, representatives and mayors. Candidates for those offices make promises in order to raise money and win votes. Donors give money to these campaigns with the expectation that the candidates will vote or act a certain way if elected.

Because the judiciary has to place the law above all other considerations, it’s different from the other branches of government. It doesn’t make sense to treat judges like political officials up until the moment they start doing their jobs. Instead, we should be treating judges differently from the moment they seek to join the bench.

Merit Selection supporters want to ensure a fair, impartial judiciary for all citizens. To that end, we’re seeking to change only how appellate judges are selected. Don’t let anyone tell you any different.

Keep visiting JudgesOnMerit.org to learn the truth about Merit Selection.

A recent Philadelphia Inquirer editorial urged the state legislature to stay on track and not get diverted from pursuing important reform legislation, such as legislative redistricting. We share the Inquirer’s concern that this legislative session is winding down with precious little action on some critical issues that affect the way we run our government.

Our primary concern is Merit Selection of appellate judges. Bills to amend the constitution have been referred to the Judiciary Committees in both houses. Passage of such bills is the first step toward letting Pennsylvanians vote in a referendum on how to choose appellate judges.

But first, we need a hearing. Please tell your legislators — particularly Judiciary Committee members and committee chairs Senator Greenleaf and Representative Caltagirone — that you want a chance to vote on changing how we choose appellate judges.

Sometimes, we’re asked whether it’s possible to fix the electoral system, rather than changing to Merit Selection. Our critics often argue that we’d do better to improve voter education when it comes to judicial elections. We agree that voter education is a critical issue, and PMC spends considerable time, energy and resources on voter education initiatives during judicial election cycles. But, we remain convinced that even greatly improved voter education isn’t enough to salvage the elective system. We’re not alone in this assessment.

Blogger David Giacalone at f/k/a parses a discussion about the benefits of increased voter education, and reasons that Merit Selection is the best way to overcome the influence of money on judicial selection.

In their May 15th cover story about the effort to bring Merit Selection of appellate judges to Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Public Record rehashed the old argument that Merit Selection supporters are conspiring to take away the right to vote for appellate judges. In an effort to set the Record straight, we wrote a letter to its editor. It was published in the May 29th edition, and is available online. As intern K.O. Myers explained, “Reasonable people can disagree about the best way to select appellate judges, but the voters of Pennsylvania should have the opportunity to weigh in on the issue. That’s all we’re asking for.”

Merit Selection of appellate judges isn’t a partisan issue. Groups that care about good government and unbiased justice, from business groups like the Pennsylvania Business Council and the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association to civic groups like Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union, support Merit Selection as the best way to ensure a fair and impartial judiciary for all citizens.

Despite this consensus from a wide spectrum of viewpoints, critics continue to insist that the campaign to bring Merit Selection of appellate judges to Pennsylvania is politically motivated. Working through the democratic process to give Pennsylvania voters the chance to choose a method of judicial selection gets unfairly portrayed as an attempt to undermine democracy.

To get at the truth, let’s take a broader view of judicial selection. In the midst of this year’s bitterly contentious race for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Wisconsin State Journal wrote an editorial urging the state to replace partisan election of its high court justices with a Merit Selection system. This insightful examination of increasingly partisan, expensive judicial elections prompting calls for reform illuminates how Merit Selection safeguards the rights of citizens.

Judges — especially supreme court judges — are supposed to check the majority ’s power to trample on the minority ’s rights. Judges do that by remaining impartial and true to the law, rather than bending to the prevailing political winds. When judges are elected in big-money contests in which partisan sides back judges partial to their politics, the system of checks and balances is upset. That’s undemocratic.

Bringing Merit Selection to Pennsylvania’s appellate courts requires that the citizens of Pennsylvania vote for it. If that happens, we will gain a judicial selection system immune to the influence of campaign fundraising. The power of deep-pocket donors will be replaced with a system that provides justice free from the taint of campaign donations. We’ll have a fair, impartial judiciary, able to decide every case without concern for raising campaign funds.

What could be more democratic than that?

Now that the Pennsylvania Senate has officially rejected Governor Rendell’s nominations to fill four vacant appellate judgeships, calls are coming for increased diversity among the judges on the appellate bench. Senate Republicans cited lack of diversity in the nominees as one reason why they rejected the slate. The Black Legislative Caucus is calling on the Governor to nominate Black and Latino candidates to fill the seats.

Supporters of Merit Selection are keenly aware of the lack of diversity on the appellate courts in Pennsylvania. Of 31 judges on the three statewide courts, only two are judges of color (one on Superior Court and one on Commonwealth Court). No minorities sit on the Supreme Court. Only one African American has ever been elected to the Supreme Court, and there have been no justices or appellate judges of Hispanic or Asian descent.

In addition, historically most appellate judges have come from the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas. This stems in large part from the difficulty in running a statewide campaign and the need for broad support from big population centers. Although county of residence is essentially irrelevant to one’s qualifications to serve as an appellate judge, it has been an important predictor of electoral success.

A diverse judiciary is good for the state, and it’s good for justice. Pennsylvanians can feel confident that their viewpoints will be fairly considered when the judiciary includes judges who come from diverse backgrounds and different parts of the Commonwealth and who bring many different experiences to the bench. Merit Selection — which offers pathways to the appellate bench for qualified jurists from a variety of areas and backgrounds — can help Pennsylvania achieve this.

It’s interesting how Merit Selection opponents trot out the same tired arguments every time there seems to be some progress in the effort to let the people weigh in on the question of how we should choose appellate judges. Dan Pero, over at American Courthouse, echoes these same refrains in his most recent post about Pennsylvania.

Let’s set the record straight. Merit Selection supporters trust the voters to make important decisions. That’s why we want the legislature to give them the opportunity to decide whether or not to change the way we pick appellate court judges.

It’s been 40 years since this issue went before the people. In that time, elections have become increasingly expensive and partisan. Public confidence in the judiciary has declined drastically. We know this is in large part related to the money, which leads us back to the question; why do we choose judges this way?

So, we’re ready to let the people tell us what they think. Merit Selection opponents, however, never want it to get that far. In their minds, the people had a chance 40 years ago and now they’re stuck with it. Who’s afraid to give the people a voice?

We want to use the democratic process to decide a critical question about our system of government. Why are Merit Selection opponents so afraid of that? Is it that they know Merit Selection is a better way to select judges and that the people, if given a chance, would want to try it? That’s the only logical explanation for their unwillingness to let the democratic process take its course.

This week, you can listen to both PMC Chair Bob Heim and PMC/PMCAction Associate Director Shira Goodman talk about Merit Selection with members of the Commonwealth Foundation. You can watch a video of Heim ’s presentation to the Commonwealth Foundation’s Policy and Principles lunch on May 14. And you can listen to Goodman discussing Merit Selection with Matt Brouillette on his radio program The Box, which aired May 17.

More information on pending legislation can be found here.