judgesonmerit.org

For many years, money has been a big issue in judicial elections.  Who’s giving campaign money to which candidate is already becoming a topic of interest for this fall’s Alabama Supreme Court election.

Campaign finance reports show that political action committees (PACs) driven by pro-business lobbyists account for the vast majority of the money raised for Republican Supreme Court candidate Greg Shaw. A significant percent of the money contributed to the campaign of Lauderdale County District Judge Deborah Bell Paseur, Shaw’s Democratic opponent, has come from law firms, individual attorneys and individuals.

Even the candidates recognize the problems with this system.  Shaw explained that enormous campaign contributions make voters wary: “There is a perception in Alabama that justice is for sale in this state. . . . That strikes at the very heart of the confidence level that Alabamians have in the Supreme Court.”

Large campaign contributions erode the voters’ confidence in their court system in Alabama and other states that hold judicial elections, including Pennsylvania. As Bert Brandenburg of Justice At Stake explained:

[P]olls show the public believes campaign contributions influence the outcome of court opinions. And a poll by the National Center for State Courts showed one in four state judges had the same opinion. “When the insiders feel like money is making a difference,” he said, “that’s pretty scary.”

Eliminating fundraising from judicial selection is a big reason to support adopting a Merit Selection system for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

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.

Merit Selection of judges in Tennessee involves a 3-part system of Merit Selection, judicial performance evaluation, and retention elections. Judges are nominated for gubernatorial appointment by a 17-member Judicial Selection Commission (14 lawyers and 3 non-lawyer citizens). Appellate judges stand for retention election every 8 years.

The Tennessee Plan has been in place since the early 1970s and is also known as the “Modified Missouri Plan.” It’s “winding down” this year, because the Tennessee legislature failed to reauthorize it, mostly because of allegations of too much secrecy in the meetings of the Judicial Selection Commission.

But the way to address the problems is not to scrap the Tennessee Plan and replace it with elections, says Governor Phil Bredesen — and we agree. Tennessee risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As Governor Bredesen suggests, perceived problems of secrecy and alleged “back-room dealing” can be addressed by amending the statute to require additional public meetings of the Commission. As the Governor explains, putting a worse system in place is not the answer:

The issue is that when you have state-wide elections, basically for appellate judges, the only people who care about those are people with very narrow special interests. They’re expensive elections because they’re state-wide, and I just think you’d have this scramble to have, you know, every interest out there whether it be business or trial lawyers or anybody else trying to elect their judges and we’d have a vastly worse system than we have today.

The problem in Tennessee isn’t secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms. That flimsy accusation is mostly a “smokescreen” itself for the special interests who seek to inject even more politics — and potentially millions of dollars — into Tennessee’s judicial selection system.

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.

In a letter to the editor published this weekend in the Philadelphia Inquirer, we call upon the legislature to consider the Merit Selection bills before the summer recess. We understand that changing the way we select appellate judges is a complex issue that needs examination and discussion. We just want the opportunity to have that discussion.

“It’s time we got the chance to show we want something different than the broken electoral system. But first, the legislature must act.” Visit this page to learn about how you can tell the legislature you want a chance to talk about Merit Selection.

Sometimes, we’re asked whether it’s possible to fix the electoral system, rather than changing to Merit Selection. Our critics often argue that we’d do better to improve voter education when it comes to judicial elections. We agree that voter education is a critical issue, and PMC spends considerable time, energy and resources on voter education initiatives during judicial election cycles. But, we remain convinced that even greatly improved voter education isn’t enough to salvage the elective system. We’re not alone in this assessment.

Blogger David Giacalone at f/k/a parses a discussion about the benefits of increased voter education, and reasons that Merit Selection is the best way to overcome the influence of money on judicial selection.

Calling all supporters of Merit Selection: We need your help!

As you know, changing the way Pennsylvania selects its appellate judges is a lengthy process. Right now, to keep moving forward, HB 2488 needs to be heard in the Judiciary Committee.

Please contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee. Ask them for a hearing on HB 2488, and ask them to support Merit Selection of appellate judges in Pennsylvania so that Pennsylvanians will have the opportunity to vote on this important subject in a constitutional referendum.

The members of the House Judiciary Committee are listed below. Click on the their names to obtain their contact information.

Majority:

• Rep. Thomas Caltagirone, D-Berks, Chairman
• Rep. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, Secretary
• Rep. Kathy Manderino, D-Montgomery, Subcommittee Chairman on Family Law
• Rep. John Pallone, D-Armstrong, Subcommittee Chairman on Crime and Corrections
• Rep. Don Walko, D-Allegheny, Subcommittee Chairman on Courts
• Rep. Lisa Bennington, D-Allegheny
• Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny
• Rep. Harold James, D-Philadelphia
• Rep. Deberah Kula, D-Fayette
• Rep. Bryan Lentz, D-Delaware
• Rep. Joseph Petrarca, D-Armstrong
• Rep. Sean Ramaley, D-Allegheny
• Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware
• Rep. Chelsa Wagner, D-Allegheny
• Rep. Jesse White, D-Allegheny
• Rep. Jewell Williams, D-Philadelphia

Minority

• Rep. Ron Marsico, R-Dauphin, Chairman
• Rep. Tom Creighton, R-Lancaster, Subcommittee Chariman on Courts
• Rep. Will Gabig, R-Cumberland, Subcommittee Chairman on Crime and Corrections
• Rep. Glenn Grell, R-Cumberland, Subcommittee Chairman on Family Law
• Rep. Craig Dally, R-Northampton
• Rep. John Evans, R-Crawford
• Rep. Kate Harper, R-Montgomery
• Rep. Beverly Mackereth, R-York
• Rep. Carl Mantz, R-Berks
• Rep. Bernie O’Neill, R-Buck
• Rep. Tina Pickett, R-Bradford
• Rep. Todd Rock, R-Franklin
• Rep. Katie True, R-Lancaster

In a May 6th editorial, the Austin American-Statesman discussed a Texas Supreme Court ruling in favor of builder Bob Perry, who had donated thousands of dollars to the campaigns of every justice on the court. The paper concluded that “it is impossible not to be cynical about the poisonous effect of money on justice.”

When thousands of dollars are flowing to judicial candidates, their fairness and impartiality are in doubt. And a ruling like the one favoring a huge donor like Perry undermines the ideal of judicial integrity, even if the decision is on sound legal footing.

The American-Statesman recognizes that court rulings in favor of big campaign donors, no matter how correct or just, are tainted with questions and uncertainty about whether the money influenced the decision. This undermines public confidence in the courts.

Merit Selection solves this dilemma. It gets judges out of the fundraising business. It will help ensure that Pennsylvania’s appellate judges can’t be accused of favoring campaign donors in their decisions. Such accusations have recently been made in West Virginia, and now in Texas. Switching to Merit Selection of Pennsylvania’s appellate judges will make sure that can’t happen here.