judgesonmerit.org

Congratulations to Greene County, MO which yesterday voted to adopt a Merit Selection plan for local judges. KY3 News reports that Greene County is the fourth Missouri county to adopt the plan for its local judges.

And congratulations to Johnson County, KS where voters defeated an effort to change from a Merit Selection system to an electoral system.  The Kansas City Star reports that unofficial results demonstrate that voters “overwhelmingly” voted against the measure to change the way judges are selected. Greg Musil, working with Johnson Countians for Justice, to defeat the ballot measure had this reaction:

Our message from the start was the system is not broken and the change to a political system bring so many risks into our efforts to dispense justice that voters ought to reject it. . . . Sixty percent of the voters figured that out and said we’re not going to turn our judges into political animals.

The critical element of these stories is that voter in Johnson County and Greene County were given the opportunity to make the decision about judicial selection.  That’s what we’ve been asking for in Pennsylvania — that Pennsylvania voters be given the chance to weigh in on whether to change the way we pick our appellate court judges.  We hope they will get that chance.

Cristina Janney, the news director of the Newton Kansan, has written a column about the upcoming judicial elections and retention elections. Some Kansas counties use elections and some use Merit Selection to pick their judges. Janney explains why she would choose Merit Selection:

I have lived in counties that have used both processes, and I believe I prefer merit selection with votes to retain. I think the judicial system is the best off when there is the least amount of political pressure exerted on the system. Justice should be about the law, experience and competence not a popularity contest.

We couldn’t have said it better.

Janney’s column is filled with more good advice about how voters can educate themselves about judicial candidates and judges standing for retention. And she sums up simply why voters should care about who becomes a judge:

[T]his is important. These judges hold the reins of our judicial system. They preside of [sic] over criminal cases of the most heinous of criminals, million-dollar lawsuits and hold people’s lives in their hands.

Janney’s words should resonate with voters everywhere. Thoughtful, knowledgeable, responsible and (above all) fair and impartial judges are critical to the functioning of our legal system.

Choosing appellate judges shouldn’t be a contest of political clout and campaign fundraising. Merit Selection puts the focus back on the ability and qualifications of judicial candidates. We hope that, as they learn more about Merit Selection, the voters of Pennsylvania will agree that it’s a better way to choose our appellate judges.

Sometimes real stories are stranger than fiction and illustrate the problems with electing judges better than any scenario we could imagine. Here are some true horror stories drawn from current judicial elections in other states. We wish we could say this is a one-time feature, but we’re pretty sure we’ll have more horror stories to share as the campaign season continues.

Our first example comes from North Carolina where Bill Belk has decided to get back at the judge who ruled against him many times during his long and costly divorce. How? By running for that judge’s seat! There has been very little news about the race since the Observer article was published in June. But Belk is still on the ballot in an effort, in his own words, “to reform the system.” His claim doesn’t sound convincing to voters, one of whom dismisses Belk as a “rich guy with a law degree but little legal experience” who is clearly running a revenge campaign.

Case number 2 makes us wonder: does running for a judicial election make a person sacrifice the long-term friendships of those who won’t donate to the campaign? It appears so in Kansas, where Reginald Davis, seeking to be a county judge, texted the following message to some attorneys who were friends of his:

If you are truly my friend then you would cut a check to the campaign! If you do not then its time I checked you. Either you are with me or against me!

An ultimatum in quasi-military language? A physical threat? Someone so desperate to win the election that he’ll risk losing friendships? Davis has been ordered to cease and desist soliciting campaign contributions personally. And the text message was found to have violated part of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct.

Judicial elections require lots of money. Belk has it and that’s why he can run for an office for which he is likely unqualified and in which he’s not all that interested, and it’s what Davis needs to be able to run. As these real life stories show, money and judicial selection just shouldn’t mix.

In November, voters in Johnson County, Kansas, will decide whether to replace their system of Merit Selection with partisan elections. An editorial from the Lawrence (Kansas) Journal-World, critically analyzing the proposed change, hits the nail on the head:

The proponents of the Johnson County change say partisan elections would make judges more accountable to the public. That may be true, but while judges are public servants, their job actually requires their first loyalty to be to the law, not to the constituents they serve. Making judges more directly accountable to the voting public creates at least the appearance that a judge’s decisions, which should be focused purely on the law, might be influenced by those who financially supported the judge’s campaign.

Money should play no role in judicial decision-making. But requiring judges to run expensive election campaigns creates the impression that money matters — not just in getting elected, but maybe even for what happens after the judge takes the bench. This undermines public confidence in the courts and impairs the ability of the court system to stand as a trusted, independent third branch of governent.

A group called Johnson Countians for Justice is fighting to keep its Merit Selection system for selecting local judges. This fall, a ballot initiative will propose eliminating the Merit Selection system and replacing it with partisan elections. Johnson Countians for Justice recently held a press conference to highlight the importance of the issue and has unveiled a well-researched website with great information for concerned voters. Here’s an excerpt from their FAQ, explaining why Kansas Counties that use Merit Selection actually allow more voter input in judicial selection than those that elect their judges:

In the 2004 Kansas general election of judicial partisan elections, only 15 out of 85 had more than one candidate on the ballot. In contrast, the voters in judicial districts with the merit selection process have the right vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to retain all of the judges in that district. Even in the 2006 primary election, only 8 of the 34 partisan elected judges had opposition.

We will follow this effort in the coming months and we wish Johnson Countians for Justice well in their fight to protect Merit Selection.

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 #5: All Merit Selection Systems Are the Same
Someone once said there as many different judicial selection systems as there are snowflakes. While that’s a bit of an exaggeration, it’s true that judicial selection systems differ greatly depending on where you are. This is also true of Merit Selection systems.

The proposal to implement Merit Selection for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts incorporates the best parts of other states’ systems, and corrects aspects of those systems that are less successful. We outline below how the proposal for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts differs from the systems used by other states. (Visit the American Judicature Society to learn more about other Merit Selection systems.)

The Nominating Commission is Appointed by Elected Officials and Non-elected Entities
Like other states’ nominating commissions, elected officials like the Governor and legislative leaders have a role in appointing members of the nominating commission. However, under the unique Pennsylvania proposal, non-elected entities, including civic organizations, law school deans, unions, business organizations, nonlawyer professional associations and public safety organizations also appoint members to the nominating commission.

The Governor Cannot Request Additional Lists or Additional Names of Recommended Candidates from the Nominating Commission
Under the proposed plan, the Governor is bound to nominate from the nominating commission’s list of recommended candidates. The Governor may not reject the list or request that other names be added to it. This is different from the Merit Selection systems in place in several states, including Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Tennessee.

The Process Involves a Role for the Governor, the Senate and the Public
Under the Pennsylvania proposal, an appellate judge can only be seated after being nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The judge will serve a short initial term of four years, after which he or she must stand before the public in a retention election. If retained, the judge may serve a ten year term, after which he or she will again be eligible to stand for retention.

Several states don’t require legislative confirmation — including Tennessee, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Kansas. And in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, judges do not stand for retention.

Merit Selection systems are as varied and unique as the states that adopt them. We think the one being considered for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts offers a better way to select appellate judges.

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