judgesonmerit.org

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.