judgesonmerit.org

A recent editorial in Mobile’s Press-Register discusses judicial salaries, standards of quality and requirements for getting a seat on Alabama’s appellate bench. To ensure that the quality of the judges on the bench consistently matches their relatively high salaries, the paper suggests abandoning judicial elections and switching to Merit Selection.

[T}o improve the quality of the appellate courts… switch to a Missouri-style system of judicial appointment and voter retention. Choosing judges in nasty, lavishly financed partisan elections demeans the courts and discourages well-qualified people from pursuing a position on the appellate bench. If the state adopted the merit selection process included in the Missouri Plan, it’s unlikely that judicial pay would outpace judicial quality.

Alabama is gearing up for an expensive state supreme court race this Fall, funded primarily by groups and individuals that spend a lot of time in court. We join with the Press-Register in the hope that the state will abandon big-money judicial elections, and make the switch to Merit Selection.

Gavel Grab notes that, in Alabama, every dollar raised for judicial election campaigns comes from private contributions. Every dollar spent on civil representation for poor citizens also comes from private donations. Sadly, donations to judicial campaigns are more than double the amount spent to fund civil justice for the poor.

We can’t say, of course, that eliminating judicial elections would automatically mean that more Alabamans would be inspired to donate to programs serving the civil legal needs of the poor. But it would mean that campaign contributions, and any potential influence of donors on the rulings of judges, would be eliminated. And maybe some of that money could be put to better use, helping impoverished citizens get the legal representation they need.

An editorial in The Tuscaloosa News reminds us that multi-million dollar judicial elections have a corrosive effect on the courts and negatively influence public perception. Alabama has endured some of the country’s costliest judicial elections, with tremendous amounts of money from business interests being poured into various judges’ campaigns. However, there is a growing awareness of and frustration with a court under the influence of big money. In short, “reform is needed:”

To a person, elected jurists say that campaign contributions play no role in their decision-making. But as one noted judge said, trying to ignore big money in judicial elections is like trying to ignore the crocodile in your bath tub.

Merit Selection, on the other hand, takes the crocodile out of the tub. It eliminates the need for candidates to raise campaign money, and allows them to run based on their legal experience and knowledge of the law. We hope that Pennsylvania will soon be able to avoid the mess created by judicial elections and adopt Merit Selection for its appellate courts.

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.

Although change comes slowly in Pennsylvania, especially when it involves amending the constitution, it’s nice to know that we’re not alone in worrying about judicial elections. It’s a common concern in states that elect their appellate judges, especially as the fundraising associated with judicial campaigns continues to rise. Folks in Alabama, Wisconsin and West Virginia have been raising similar concerns this campaign season. They are concluding that Merit Selection is a better way to pick appellate court judges.

An opinion piece in The Harvard Crimson points out that four states are in the midst of partisan elections to pick judges for their highest courts. In calling for a move away from partisan election of judges, the author highlights the problem of “judicial candidates [receiving] contributions from firms or attorneys who will potentially present cases, or at least play a role, in their prospective courtrooms”

We agree with the author when she says that we need to reform the way we select judges. Merit Selection gets appellate judges out of the fundraising business. It will help to ensure a fair and impartial judiciary, free from the appearance of bias.