judgesonmerit.org

Once again, we’re faced with opponents who fail to recognize the inconsistencies in their own positions. In a recent post attacking Merit Selection, Dan Pero of American Courthouse demonstrates that he really prefers a judicial selection system that involves no direct public participation at all.

He’s talking about the federal system, a pure appointment system. The president nominates a judge, who then must be confirmed by the Senate. If confirmed, the judge serves for life. There’s no retention process; the judge never goes before the public in any sort of election or evaluative process.

Under Merit Selection, by contrast, after an initial four year term on the bench, the appellate judge would stand before the public in a retention election. The public would have the ultimate opportunity to determine whether the judge should continue to serve for a full ten-year term. This process is repeated every ten years thereafter (until the judge voluntarily resigns or reaches the mandatory retirement age).

We understand that the President (who nominates) and the Senators (who confirm) are elected representatives of the people and that the people are therefore represented in the federal process. We agree, and point out that this is also true in Merit Selection where the Governor nominates and the Senators confirm. But retention offers a direct role for the public to weigh in on whether the judge should remain on the bench.

So, when you’re talking about democracy and a role for the people, Merit Selection offers more than the federal system.

Despite our best efforts, Merit Selection opponents persist in spreading misinformation about what Merit Selection is, how it works and why supporters wish to implement it for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

Opponents latch onto buzzwords like “democracy” while totally ignoring that democracy includes giving the public the chance to weigh in on important issues like how we select appellate judges. Those who think about these issues understand that you can’t cloak yourself as a protector of democratic values while fighting against allowing the people to decide the best way to select appellate judges.

It’s not democratic to block a public referendum on a critical issue of governance and deprive the people of the opportunity to vote on the question. It’s not democratic to scare the public into thinking the issue at hand is something different than a choice about whether to change the process for picking judges.

Reasonable people can and do disagree about how Pennsylvania should choose appellate judges. We’re ready and willing to engage in discussion and debate about this, for education is the only way to make an informed decision on this critical issue.

We urge you to be part of these discussions and to beware of misinformation, especially when it comes cloaked in pretty language about democracy.

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?