judgesonmerit.org

Earlier this week, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, along with 27 national, state and local reform groups, filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Caperton v. Massey. The question raised in this case is whether the due process clause requires judges in certain situations to recuse from cases involving campaign contributors. The brief argues that the essence of due process is a fair and impartial judge:

[P]recedent, and the history of the Due Process Clause, require that the Court find that judicial campaign contributions, in certain circumstances, create the reality or appearance of judicial bias in violation of the Due Process Clause.

The brief discusses the history of judicial selection and notes that because of the increasing expense of elections and the growing importance of campaign contributions “Judicial elections have created a crisis in public confidence.” The brief discusses the evolution of efforts in the states and nationally to address this crisis and improve the judicial selection process. Merit Selection was one of the reforms highlighted.

We are proud to be part of this brief and are eager to see how the Court will address this critical question. Keep checking for updates. To read more about this brief, visit Text and History; information about all the amici briefs filed in the case is available in this press release from Justice At Stake and the Brennan Center.

During the past few months, we’ve been following stories from the campaign trails in Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia and other states electing judges.  Our focus has been on campaign spending — where the money comes from and where it goes, what the candidates are saying, and the public reaction to the campaigns.  If you’re looking for  information about who won each election, visit Gavel Grab for a good collection of articles about all the races as well as Justice At Stake’s  press release on the elections.

In addition, the American Judicature Society has issued a press release about how voters in four counties — two in Alabama, one each in Kansas and Missouri, have voted in favor of Merit Selection.  These voters were given the chance to decide whether or not to change the way they selected their judges.  In three cases, they changed from elections to Merit Selection; in the fourth, they rejected a proposal to replace a  Merit Selection system with judicial elections.

We hope Pennsylvanians will soon get the same opportunity to decide whether or not to change how we select appellate court judges.

An Associated Press article chronicles the rising costs of judicial elections, focusing on current contests in the Midwest. This sounds just like what we’ve been seeing in Pennsylvania — rising contributions from lawyers and entities likely to come before the courts, fundraising records being broken and spending by third party groups to influence elections.

The article questions business representatives and trial lawyers about why they give to these campaigns. But the issue is put into real focus by Charlie Hall of Justice At Stake who explains why requiring groups to disclose their donors and requiring judges to recuse when donors appear before them makes sense: “‘The thinking is, if you took away the financial incentives for having your judges on the court, you would dry up the money.’”

It’s time to get money out of the judicial selection process and get judges out of the fundraising business. We think Merit Selection is the way to do this for the appellate courts of Pennsylvania.

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.