judgesonmerit.org

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.

Minnesota Public Radio reports that in a recent speech, former United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor praised merit selection as a good way to choose judges.  She spoke during a forum focusing on changing the way Minnesota selects its judges.  Justice O’Connor particularly noted that merit selection systems increase diversity on the courts: “In my home state with a merit selection system, we got much greater diversity on the bench, both racial and gender. . . . And it’s worked very effectively, more so than the election system did.”

In an editorial addressing Governor Rendell’s stalled interim judicial appointments, Scranton’s Times-Tribune points out that judicial elections make it difficult for qualified candidates from many areas of Pennsylvania to reach the appellate bench.

Due to simple electoral math, it is very difficult for any candidate who is not from the Philadelphia area or Allegheny County to be elected to the appellate courts. Diversification of the appellate courts is one of the reasons that the state should switch to a system of merit selection.

Diversity on the bench, including geographic, racial, ethnic, gender and professional diversity, is one of many important characteristics of a fair and impartial justice system. It’s something that’s elections have not produced on Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

We agree with the Times-Tribune that it’s time for Pennsylvania’s legislators to “get the ball rolling on merit selection.”

In a letter to the Philadephia Daily News, Philadelphia’s four immediate past City Solicitors (Kenneth I. Trujillo, Nelson A. Diaz, Pedro A. Ramos & Romulo L. Diaz Jr.) and the current City Solicitor (Shelley R. Smith) urge that: “IT’S TIME for Pennsylvania to start picking pick appellate-court judges based solely on proven ability, experience and a reputation for fairness and impartiality.” They believe the way to do this is Merit Selection.

The authors further argue that Merit Selection “opens up pathways to the appellate judiciary that have not always been available” because “all applicants - regardless of political connections, access to financial resources, county of residence, race, ethnicity or gender - would have a chance to be evaluated objectively by a citizen-based nominating commission and, if found qualified, to be on a list of recommended candidates.”

We thank these dedicated public servants for their support.

The Legal Intelligencer’s blog reports that Governor Rendell spoke about the need for Merit Selection during the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division annual meeting Tuesday. The Governor says he supports Merit Selection of appellate judges “because judicial candidates shouldn’t have to raise money from lawyers or potential litigants,” and “the state’s elected system of judges is a terrible system for diversity.”

Governor Rendell is a long-time believer in Merit Selection, and we appreciate his on-going support for the effort to change the way we pick appellate judges.

In today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, columnist Daniel Rubin praises the new effort to change to a Merit Selection system for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts. The column focuses on the lack of diversity on the three statewide appellate courts and notes that the electoral system doesn’t provide opportunities for those from diverse backgrounds to reach the appellate bench: “There’s some question whether God could get elected to the highest court in the state - especially if God were black, were from Philadelphia, or didn’t get a good ballot position.” We believe Merit Selection will create pathways to the appellate courts for qualified lawyers in Pennsylvania who come from diverse backgrounds, and who don’t have access to tremendous financial resources or political backing.