judgesonmerit.org

The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Central Pennsylvania supports Merit Selection because it “would be more likely to elevate qualified minority candidates to the bench than the current partisan election system,” lawyer and Hispanic Chamber representative Edward Lanza told the Senate Judiciary Committee in his oral and written testimony at the recent hearings on Merit Selection legislation.

The Hispanic Chamber believes that it is very important for the integrity of the judicial system in Pennsylvania that the courts reflect the increasing diversity of the Commonwealth’s population.  A growing Hispanic population is more likely to trust a court system that includes judges from diverse backgrounds and is more representative of the Community as a whole. . . .

This is not to say that diversity should be the only criterion for selection.  Neither should diversity be the main consideration.  The Commission will select persons of demonstrated competence, judgment and integrity to submit to the Governor for consideration, first taking into account the applicants’ qualifications and then considering the goal that each appellate bench should include both men and women, and judges and justices from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds and who reflect the Commonwealth’s geographic diversity.

Designed to put the most qualified jurists on the bench, Merit Selection provides greater opportunities to candidates that represent Pennsylvania’s diversity.  We would like to thank Ed Lanza and The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce for their support.

Read more about the Senate Judiciary hearing and see the testimony of various supporters here.

Folks are talking about Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Merit Selection.  The Legal Intelligencer ran a front page article about the hearing, quoting many who testified and noting that Senator Jane Earll plans to reintroduce the legislation in the new session beginning in January 2009. The Legal reported that Merit Selection supporters “argued that while politics can’t be taken out of the judicial selection process, an appointed system will lessen the sway of partisan politics over judicial candidates who must decide judicial controversies impartially.”  The Legal also noted that:

[N]o rights would be taken away in this proposal because Pennsylvania voters will ultimately have the right to approve or disapprove the proposal if the merit selection bill passes both legislative houses in two consecutive sessions, said Lynn Marks, executive director of PMC; Gene Barr, vice president for government relations at the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry; and Edward Lanza, an attorney with Saul Ewing and a member of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Central Pennsylvania’s board.

Our Coalition partner the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry posted this account of the hearing, quoting the testimony of Vice President Gene Barr:

In order to command the absolute respect and confidence of the public at large in an independent, non-partisan judiciary, Pennsylvania needs to move from a partisan election approach driven by special interests and money to one that is based upon one’s qualifications.

And check out Gavel Grab’s post about the hearing.

Merit Selection supporters gathered in Harrisburg yesterday for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman of PMC and PMCAction were joined by former Superior Court Judge Phyllis W. Beck and representatives of civic groups, business organizations, and lawyers and bar associations in advocating for adoption of Merit Selection for the Pennsylvania appellate courts. A full list of those who presented testimony and copies of written submissions are available on our Report on the Senate Hearing page.

At the beginning of the hearing, Senator Jane Earll, prime sponsor of the Merit Selection legislation, expressed her reasons for supporting judicial selection reform:”I believe a better court, a more diverse court will result in a system that isn’t dependent on money and ballot positions.”

Coalition members testified about the problems inherent in electing judges, particularly the increasing expenses associated with judicial campaigns and the negative perceptions caused by fundraising by judicial candidates.  Marks, executive director of PMC and PMCAction explained, “The current electoral system — with its emphasis on fundraising and campaign prowess — is broken and is undermining public confidence in the judiciary and our courts.  The solution that is best designed to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the appellate bench and to get those juges out of the fundraising business is Merit Selection.”

In addition, coalition partners explained that Merit Selection offers greater opportunities for qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds to reach the appellate bench.  Edward Lanza, board member of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Central Pennsylvania told the Committee: “We’re persuaded the Merit Selection process would be more likely to elevate qualified minority candidates to the appellate bench.”

Senator Earll and Senator Mary Jo White actively questioned those presenting testimony.  In response to comments that Merit Selection supporters aim to disenfranchise voters, Senator White explained:

I object to that statement about the franchise. I believe in the franchise and so does Sandra Day O’Connor [who is a supporter of Merit Selection]. . . . In my experience, the current system discriminates against people who can’t raise large amounts of money to run campaigns — women, those from small counties and minorities.  This tries to level the playing field.

Gene Barr, Vice President for Government Relations of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry agreed, explaining the Merit Selection legislation “is giving Pennsylvanians the opportunity to decide if they want to change the process” of how they select appellate judges.  On this very issue Senator White noted:

1969 [when last a referendum was held on this issue] was forty years ago.  A lot has changed in that time, the money, television ads, out of state money. . . Let’s ask the people again.  It shows a lot of confidence in the voters to ask “are you confident in voting for appellate court judges?”

We thank Senator Greenleaf and the Judiciary Committee for holding this hearing.  We hope it will be the first step in an ongoing dialogue about how we select appellate court judges — a dialogue that will culiminate with giving the people of Pennsylvania the opportunity to decide for themselves.