judgesonmerit.org

John Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News spoke to Marty Moss-Coane on Radio Times this morning (you can listen to it here – the interview with Baer starts at approximately 40 minutes in). Baer observed that the judicial elections were likely decided based on factors other than qualifications — factors like memorable slogans, a catchy name, or party affiliation. Especially with record low voter turnout (estimates show maybe 20% of registered voters showed up), these other factors can become all important.

Baer made reference to two particular ads: for Judge Judy Olson, an ad that said, “Vote for PA’s ‘Judge Judy.’” For Sally Mundy, “So remember – on Tuesday, vote for Mundy.”  Both candidates won. “These judicial races are a roll of the dice, and factors outside the qualifications of the candidates usually determine the outcome,” Baer said.

In addition to these whimsical factors, the nasty campaign ads from both candidates in the Supreme Court race (which will undoubtedly mark this election as having one of the worst tones in recent memory) may have played a big role.

This was an uncharacteristically nasty [Supreme Court race]. The irony is that both [candidates] were highly recommended by the PA bar, both currently sit on the Superior Court, both have pretty good judicial records. . . and yet they came out swinging like ward leaders. . . . It was really the kind of stuff you’d see in a local legislative race, not a Supreme Court race.”

Money and political parties, said Baer, were very important.

We’re one of only six states that elect judges at all levels, and these races are routinely fueled by the people most interested in the outcome – the trial lawyers, and the hard-core politicians. [Panella got a lot of money from the trial lawyers and] Orie Melvin got a lot of money from the Republican party, and a lot of help from her sister [Joan Orie], who happens to be the majority whip in the state senate.”

The obvious solution to removing or reducing irrelevant and random factors and making qualifications determine who reaches the bench is to select our judges based on merit. That, said Baer, will require the leaders of the state’s political parties to offer more than lip-service to the change.  We certainly hope that will be coming soon.

In today’s Philadelphia Daily News column, John Baer reviews the judicial election results and scratches his head about how we select our judges.

So, did people vote yesterday? According to Baer, “The low-profile court contests appeared to draw lower than normal court-race turnout; some experts projected a statewide figure below 20 percent.”  That’s certainly not a show of confidence in the judicial election process.

As Baer notes, Republican candidates did very well, winning at least six of seven appellate court seats. Baer goes on to note the continuing success of women from the Western part of the state.  As of this writing, women are poised to win at least five out of seven seats on the appellate courts, and a woman is in a close race for a sixth seat.

Baer wraps up the column with this important thought: “But the way we put judges on the bench? Who knows what kind of day it was for justice?”  Baer is not alone in worrying that the judicial election system — which seems driven by ballot position, party affiliation, gender and geography — is not the right way to select appellate court judges.  We just hope the people of Pennsylvania are now ready to start talking about a better way.

John Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News argued in his column earlier this week that: “THE NASTY RACE for state Supreme Court is making yet another strong case for not electing statewide judges.” Baer notes that the recent dispute between Supreme Court candidates Jack Panella and Joan Orie Melvin over campaign contributions and their current tv ad war (we posted about these ads yesterday) is strong evidence that the way we select judges needs to change.

First Baer picks apart a Panella ad claiming that Melvin is dangerous for women, especially when it comes to their healthcare decisions:

[W]hen I ask, I’m referred to a May Superior Court case involving consensual sex between a physician and a female patient with psychological problems who says she got worse thereafter.

The court ruled in the woman’s favor, suggesting she might well have a case of medical malpractice. Orie Melvin dissented.

Sounds bad. But the dissent was based on interpretation of law as applied in similar cases and suggested that while the (general practitioner) doc’s acts were “unethical,” they don’t constitute medical malpractice. A woman, former Judge Maureen Lally-Green, wrote the dissent and Orie Melvin joined it.

Seems a stretch that disagreeing on points of law in a case of consensual whoopee endangers women’s rights and safety.

Then Baer turns to the Orie Melvin ad that claims Panella is dangerous for children because he served on the Judicial Conduct Board when a complaint related to the Luzerne County scandal was filed:

[Orie Melvin's ad] all but paints [Panella] as personally shackling, imprisoning and feeding gruel to the victims. “Jack Panella could have stopped the abuses,” her ad says.

It’s just that the Associated Press last month quoted the U.S. attorney prosecuting the case as saying the board acted properly in ‘06, quickly forwarding an anonymous complaint. And yesterday, Panella’s campaign released a letter from five former board members saying the same thing. Seems a stretch to lay the collapse of a county system at the feet of a single state judge.

Finally, Baer mocks Orie Melvin’s claims of being a reformer: “Orie Melvin insist[s]“I’m no insider” (which is like Bret Favre saying he’s a rookie since he’s on a new team).”

Baer shifts responsibility back to we the people to do something about all this: “Ask yourself if there just might be a better way to pick the people who sit on our highest court.”

Good question, John.  If voters are honest with themselves, they know the answer is yes. Elections aren’t working; it’s time for Merit Selection.

John Baer, columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, greets the day after election day with this question: “Time to end electing judges?”  Answering his own question, Baer argues:

It has been long my contention that electing judges, especially statewide, is a joke. It strikes me even more so today. Pennsylvanians are filling six appellate judgeships this year. Yesterday’s ballot carried 22 candidates. I mean, come on.

First of all, it’s a crapshoot. Nobody’s heard of these people. So ballot position, geography (the ballot lists where candidates are from) and gender usually determine outcome. In other words, luck.

Then, Baer moves on to the money problem:

Also, judicial races are unseemly. Campaigns are funded by lawyers who later appear before the judges they help elect. So even apart from the pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey (or elephant) aspect of the process, electing judges begs for politics to influence justice.

Just the possibility that it will is enough to diminish faith in our courts.

Baer advocates for Pennsylvania to make a change and remove itself from the handful of states that elect all judges in partisan elections.  We agree with him and hope that Pennsylvanians will ultimately get to decide for themselves whether to find a better way to pick appellate court judges.