judgesonmerit.org

On July 1, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts issues a press release about the newly confirmed interim appointments to four appellate court vacancies. Executive Director Lynn Marks echoed the sentiment reflected in yesterday’s post: “We must be clear about this. Despite the fact that this process involved nomination by the governor and confirmation by the Senate, it is not the same as Merit Selection.” The press release went on to highlight the differences between the two processes.

The press release concluded: “We hope that disillusionment with the current process and dissatisfaction with the delay that resulted will motivate the public to demand a better way to fill all appellate court vacancies — Merit Selection.”

A June 29th editorial in Jackson, Mississippi’s Clarion-Ledger shows how wealthy interests on either side of a single issue - tort reform - have twisted elections for the state’s Supreme Court. These elections have become a million-dollar sparring ground, where big bank accounts battle to influence judicial policy, and the interests of ordinary citizens and impartial justice are consigned to the bleachers.

Both sides - plaintiffs’ attorneys and the business/medical community - have too much riding on the outcome of cases not to spend big bucks on these campaigns. Left out and ignored, however, are the poor, the voiceless and those who don’t have enough money for political action committees or lobbyists.

When judicial elections become multi-million dollar endeavors, winning a seat on the bench can become a fundraising contest. Smart, fair-minded and experienced candidates are locked out of the system if they can’t generate the level of donations necessary to compete.

Opponents of judicial selection reform like to present themselves as the champions of the people, fighting to preserve the rights of citizens. But often, what they’re really trying to protect is the ability of wealthy campaign donors to decide who makes it to the bench.

Merit Selection of appellate judges short-circuits the influence of big campaign donations. Because candidates are evaluated on their knowledge and experience, Merit Selection gives qualified people who can’t raise gobs of campaign cash a shot at becoming a judge. The appellate bench will be open to people from all backgrounds, and all areas of the state, with knowledge of and respect for the law as the primary criteria for membership.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson is worried about reelection. The vote won’t be held until next year, but in the aftermath of the record-setting 2007 and 2008 Wisconsin judicial elections, she’s already lining up bipartisan support and trying to raise funds. Neatly summing up the problems with judicial elections, her fundraising committee wrote:

“After the last two judicial campaigns, you probably don’t need a sermon on what’s wrong with the way we elected judges in this state, or the embarrassingly small number of people who vote in judicial elections, or the tenor and content of the campaign advertisements sponsored by some organizations… We all know how powerful those 30-second ads can be.”

Judicial elections are getting more expensive everywhere; just think what will happen in Pennsylvania next year.

Even one nasty judicial election would have lasting negative consequences, warns Minnesota’s new chief justice, Eric J. Magnuson.

Our citizens trust our judicial system but what happens when you have even one big, nasty, highly-politicized judicial election concerns me greatly,” he said. ”Perceptions of fairness, equity and access I think will be dramatically undermined if the public’s confidence erodes and it only takes one big campaign to do that.

Magnuson argues that Minnesota needs to switch from judicial elections to a system of “retention elections,” as espoused by the commission headed by former Gov. Al Quie. Under the Quie commission plan, a Merit Selection commission would prepare a list of judges, from which the governor would make his appointments. Ultimately, after an initial term in office, the judges would stand before the public in retention elections and it is the voters who have the final say whether to keep or to fire the appointed judge.

If these changes aren’t made, Magnuson predicts that Minnesota will have to endure what Wisconsin suffered last month.

Millions of dollars were spent by special interest groups on ads attacking the candidates as freeing criminals or engaging in political cronyism,” Magnuson said. ”Well-heeled special interests attempting to manipulate the judicial process are no longer the stuff of fictional thrillers written by John Grisham. It’s reality. It’s reality that’s right next door.

It’s also becoming a reality in Pennsylvania, as elections become more and more expensive and attract money from out-of-state special interest groups.

Minnesota is bracing itself for increasingly negative and expensive judicial elections. Tapped by the State Bar Association to be the Chairman of the Judicial Election Campaign Conduct Committee, attorney David Stowman will try to prevent the elections from turning ugly and partisan.

Stowman points out that judicial elections should be different than other elections. “Judges do not have a constituency, they are more like a referee.” This essential role is threatened by one of the biggest problems with judicial elections: the influence of money and the buying of influence. “Certainly none of us would want to be sitting in front of a judge that had taken large campaign contributions from the other side of the counsel table,” he said.

States that have judicial elections, like Minnesota and our own Pennsylvania, should expect judicial elections to become increasingly expensive and nasty. Stowman hopes that the Judicial Election Campaign Conduct Committee will only be temporary, and that Minnesota will move away from judicial elections. Some are calling for Merit Selection. By removing the money, Merit Selection provides a cleaner, more dignified process.

Link to story; free, requires registration.

JudgesOnMerit.org is a project of Pennsylvanians For Modern Courts and PMCAction. We believe that Merit Selection is a better way to choose Pennsylvania’s appellate judges.

Merit Selection provides pathways to the appellate bench for candidates of diverse backgrounds who are experienced lawyers and jurists.  Qualifications and skills are the key factors in determining who reaches the appellate bench in a Merit Selection system.

Merit Selection removes campaign donations from the judicial selection process, allowing appellate judges to be chosen based on their qualifications and experience. By getting judges out of the fundraising business, Merit Selection promises appellate courts free from the perception of potential bias toward campaign contributors.

If you’d like to add your name or organization to the growing list of supporters of Merit Selection in Pennsylvania, we’d love to hear from you. Please fill out & return the Supporter Form, or contact us at info@pmcaction.org.

In the aftermath of a fundraising record-setting election and mulitiple recusals by a new Justice seeking to avoid repeating earlier mistakes, Wisconsin is worried about the rising price of judicial elections. As former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske explained, “the increasing amounts of money spent on campaigns that get more bitter every year is likely to hurt the court’s image.”

This is precisely our concern in Pennsylvania. Public perception is very important. Costly judicial elections do not generate confidence in the courts; instead they lead to decreased trust in the impartiality and fairness of the courts.

There is uncertainty in Tennessee about how appellate court judges will be selected now that the legislature failed to renew Tennesee’s Merit Selection system, which is scheduled to sunset next year. There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and apparently some hesitancy among potential applicants. This is not only because it’s not clear what the selection process will entail, but also because of specific concerns related to judicial elections.

Former Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Penny White, now a law professor, attributes the lack of applicants to concern about out-of-state money flowing in to influence judicial elections: “‘It only happens in states where there are elected judges on the bench.’”

We understand this concern, because this is what happened in Pennsylvania last year. We’ll keep watching Tennessee to see what happens there.

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.

As the campaign for Merit Selection progresses, we hear some inaccurate arguments repeated by those who oppose Merit Selection. In an effort to set the record straight, we’ll reveal the truth and clear up these myths.

Myth #6: Merit Selection supporters want to do away with all elections.

This is a favorite scare tactic of opponents of Merit Selection, usually worded as a question; “While we’re at it, why not replace election of the governor or the legislature with Merit Selection too?” It suggests, falsely, that supporters of Merit Selection of appellate judges plan to somehow create a world where nobody votes for anything, and the entire government is appointed rather than elected.

The truth is that Merit Selection supporters aren’t trying to replace election of all public officials. We think that Merit Selection is a better way to select appellate judges because judges are different from other elected officials. Judges are sworn to act impartially, to apply the law without regard for personal preference, political pressure or the interests of campaign contributors.

Impartiality isn’t a requirement for other officials, like governors, senators, representatives and mayors. Candidates for those offices make promises in order to raise money and win votes. Donors give money to these campaigns with the expectation that the candidates will vote or act a certain way if elected.

Because the judiciary has to place the law above all other considerations, it’s different from the other branches of government. It doesn’t make sense to treat judges like political officials up until the moment they start doing their jobs. Instead, we should be treating judges differently from the moment they seek to join the bench.

Merit Selection supporters want to ensure a fair, impartial judiciary for all citizens. To that end, we’re seeking to change only how appellate judges are selected. Don’t let anyone tell you any different.

Keep visiting JudgesOnMerit.org to learn the truth about Merit Selection.