judgesonmerit.org

On Monday, the Courts Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the pending Merit Selection legislation.  Representative Josh Shapiro (D, Montgomery) chaired the hearing in Subcommittee Chair Don Walko’s (D, Allegheny) absence. Also attending were Minority Subcommittee Chair Tom Creighton (R, Lancaster), bill sponsor Matt Smith (D, Allegheny), Mike Vereb (R, Montgomery), Joseph Petrarca (D, Armstrong), Kathy Manderino (D, Philadelphia and Montgomery), Kate Harper (R, Montgomery), Glen Grell (R, Cumberland) and Deberah Kula (D, Fayette and Westmoreland).

The hearing was very informative.  Nearly all who testified — both those who supported the legislation and those who opposed it in some way — agreed that there are problems with the current electoral system, notably the role of money in the process.  This consensus is significant and reflects the public’s belief in the corrupting influence of money in the process.

Testifying on behalf of the legislation were PMC and PMCAction’s Bob Heim, Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman; Dave Taylor of the Pennsylvania Manufacturer’s Association; and Charlotte Glauser of the League of Women Voters of PA.  J. Whyatt Mondesire of the NAACP was scheduled to present testimony in support of Merit Selection but was unable to attend.

In the next few days, we will upload copies of the testimony presented at the hearing, but we offer a few highlights.  Bob Heim, Chair of PMC, focused on the need for reform and the importance of getting judges out of the fundraising business. He highlighted the public’s growing concern that money can influence judicial decisionmaking and called on the legislature to allow Pennsylvanians to decide whether to change the way we select appellate court judges.

Charlotte Glauser of the League of Women Voters of PA explained the League’s long standing support for Merit Selection, urging “Passage of these bills will do much to restore the public image of independence of Pennsylvania’s appellate court system.”

PMA’s Dave Taylor explained that Merit Selection would “improve the professionalism, integrity, and independence of the judicial branch of goverment.” Taylor explained:

By combining elements of elective and appointive systems for nominating our appellate court judges, Pennsylvania can uphold the professionalism of the courts and protect our jurists from the conflicts of interest that inevitably arise from political fundraising and campaigning.

Testifying in opposition were Tom Foley III of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice (formerly the Pennsylvania Association of Trial Lawyers), Professor Michael Dimino of Widener University, and Rick Bloomingdale, Secretary Treasuer of the AFL-CIO.  Professor Dimino actually endorsed a Merit Selection for the Superior and Commonwealth Courts and even for the trial level courts, but argued against Merit Selection for the Supreme Court.

Rick Bloomingdale of the AFL-CIO noted the organization’s current opposition to the legislation, but expressed a willingness to support an amended version of a Merit Selection plan. This is significant, and we are hopeful that as the Committee considers the bill, we can work with our traditional partners and with groups such as the AFL-CIO to design the best system of judicial selection for the Pennsylvania appellate courts.

In a publicly released letter to bill sponsor Matt Smith, Governor Rendell again expressed his strong support for Merit Selection:

I have said on many occasions that our system of electing appellate judges makes no sense. It is no secret that there is great concern in Pennsylvania about the role of money in judicial elections. Current law could allow judicial candidates to accept indirect contributions from lawyers and special interest groups that may eventually have to argue a case before that judicial candidate. It is no wonder that Pennsylvanians have been losing faith in our courts and our judges.

PMC and PMCAction are grateful to the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Courts for the opportunity to present public testimony at yesterday’s hearing. We thank the bill sponsors, Representatives Smith and Will Gabig (R, Cumberland), for their leadership as well as all the representatives who attended the hearing.  We look forward to working together to achieve a better way for Pennsylvanians to select appellate court judges.

On Monday December 7, the Courts Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the pending Merit Selection legislation.  The hearing will be at 10:00 am in Room G50, Irvis Office, Capitol Building.

Testifying in support of implementing a Merit Selection system for the Pennsylvania appellate courts will be Robert Heim, Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction, J. Whyatt Mondesire of the NAACP, Dave Taylor of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association and Charlotte Glauser of the League of Women Voters of PA.

The hearing is the first step in the process of moving forward with legislation to amend the constitution.  We hope this process will allow Pennsylvanians to have an important dialogue about whether we should change the way we select appellate court judges.

We know from polls and surveys and from low voter turn-out that there is great concern about the role of money in judicial elections.  We also know that Pennsylvanians have been losing confidence in our courts and judges.  We believe Merit Selection — which focuses on getting the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the appellate courts and gets judges out of the fundraising business — will be a significant factor in restoring public confidence in our courts.

PMC, the League of Women Voters of PA and the Temple University Beasley School of Law Student Bar Association co-sponsored a debate between the candidates running for the vacancy on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The candidates, Superior Court Judges Jack Panella and Joan Orie Melvin, answered questions about campaign contributions, recusal decisions, the Luzerne County Courthouse scandal and the role of the Supreme Court in deciding cases and administering the court system.  Although the candidates agreed on several issues, their exchanges — particularly about this campaign — did become heated.

Read PMC’s press release about the debate.  For those who missed attending live, the debate will be televised on the Pennsylvania Cable Network (PCN) Sunday Oct. 25 at 4:00 pm; Monday Oct. 26 at 10:00 pm; Thursday Oct. 29 at 10:00 pm; Sunday Nov. 1 at 3:00 pm; and Monday Nov. 2 at 4:00 pm.

Tomorrow, Thursday October 22, PMC is co-sponsoring (with the League of Women Voters of PA, the Student Bar Association of the Temple University Beasley School of Law, Temple Law Republicans and Temple Law Democrats) a debate between the Supreme Court candidates.  Some have questioned why we are doing so in light of our efforts to replace judicial elections with a Merit Selection system for the appellate courts.

The answer is simple.  As long as Pennsylvania continues to elect judges, it is part of PMC’s mission to educate voters and provide resources that assist them in making decisions during judicial elections.  We sponsor candidate debates; publish lists of questions for voters to consider and identify resources that can provide answers; and participate in other programs aimed at educating voters.

We hope that by doing so, we help voters feel more prepared to make critical decisions about who should serve on our courts.  In addition, we believe that as voters learn more about the process, they will come to realize that electing appellate judges in partisan contests just doesn’t make sense.

We hope you will join us tomorrow at noon at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law for the debate between candidates Jack Panella and Joan Orie Melvin.  More information is available here.  For those who can’t join us in person, PCN (the Pennsylvania Cable Network) will be airing the debate repeatedly in advance of the election.  The schedule includes the following airtimes: Sunday Oct. 25 at 4:00 pm; Monday Oct. 26 at 10:00 pm; Thursday Oct. 29 at 10:00 pm; Sunday Nov. 1 at 3:00 pm; and Monday Nov. 2 at 4:00 pm.

The Philadelphia Inquirer sets the stage for the election to fill a Supreme Court vacancy by citing comments the candidates’ made during the debate PMC cosponsored last week with the League of Women Voters of PA and the Harrisburg Area Community College:

Public perception of the judiciary has again emerged as a central issue in the statewide judicial campaigns, this time in the primary race to fill a single vacancy on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

With a high-profile judicial-corruption case in Luzerne County fresh on voters’ minds and questions about the length of time it took the Supreme Court to respond to issues raised by the case, candidates for the highest court are pledging to restore integrity to the bench.

Will this issue drive more voters to pay attention to and participate in the traditionally lower turn-out elections?  PMC Executive Director Lynn Marks said it was possible: “”People are saying, ‘We don’t want a court system like the one we read about in Luzerne.’ ”

What about the damage done to perceptions of the courts and the judiciary through the electoral process itself, in particular the need for campaigns to raise money from lawyers, law firms and entities who frequently litigate in the courts?  This is a major concern of voters, and a very good reason to find a new way to select appellate court judges.