judgesonmerit.org

We frequently acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree about the best way to select appellate court judges.  We believe it’s time to have a full, open dialogue in Pennsylvania about whether we should change how we pick our appellate judges.  We want that to include a public referendum on the question.  And that’s why we’re working within the constitutional amendment process to pursue the reform we believe is needed.

We understand that people have strong opinions about these issues.  And we welcome impassioned debate.  But we’re tired of opponents of Merit Selection attacking us and the Merit Selection process on false premises.  It happened again yesterday.  American Courthouse accused us of wanting to change to Merit Selection so we can get a certain kind of judge on the bench.  That’s simply not true.

We have never criticized or praised any judge for his or her judicial philosophy or decisions.  We have never advocated the election or defeat of any judicial candidate.  We have always focused on the problems with the electoral system — the skyrocketing campaign contributions from lawyers, law firms and organizations that litigate in the state courts, the lack of required qualifications to serve on the appellate courts, the lack of diversity on our appellate courts, the influence of random factors like ballot position affecting election outcomes, and voters’ inability to access relevant information about the candidates.  These are the reasons we want to change the way we pick our appellate court judges.

So, disagree with us if you must, but get our position right when you do.

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.