judgesonmerit.org

The Legal Intelligencer has published a commentary piece (subscription required) by PMC and PMCAction entitled “People Should Decide on Change of Judicial Selection Process.”  The piece focuses on the process required to amend the constitution to change how judges are selected.  This process requires the legislature to pass the amendment in two successive legislative sessions.  Second passage is followed by a public referendum.  That means the constitution can only be changed if the people of Pennsylvania vote for it to be changed.

We trust the people of Pennsylvania to make decisions about how to select appellate court judges:

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction believe the people of Pennsylvania should have the opportunity to decide whether to change the way we select our appellate judges. It has been 40 years since the question was last put to the people, and, in those 40 years, judicial elections have changed dramatically. We believe that it’s time for Pennsylvanians to take a serious look at how appellate judges are selected and determine whether it’s working or if we need a change.

We wonder why our confidence in the public is not shared.  Many defenders of the current judicial election system claim they oppose change because they want to protect the franchise.  But this claim cannot be reconciled with their refusal to let the people vote on this critical issue.

It’s time to find a better way to select appellate court judges — a way that doesn’t rely on expensive campaigns and that reduces the influence of random and irrelevant factors like ballot position, name recognition and fundraising ability. We want the people of Pennsylvania to vote on whether or not to change the judicial selection process. We’re not afraid to hear their answer. We wonder why “defenders of the franchise” are afraid to let the people vote.

A judicial discipline case in Pennsylvania is again demonstrating the problem inherent in fundraising for judicial election campaigns.  As the Philadephia Inquirer reports, Philadelphia Traffic Court Judge Willie Singletary has been found guilty by the Court of Judicial Discipline of four counts of judicial misconduct stemming from his actions while campaigning for the bench.

During a 2007 ceremony called the “Blessing of the Bikes,” Singletary solicited donations for his judicial campaign.  This activity, and the specific words he used, were found to violate several provisions of the rules of judicial conduct, including the prohibition against direct solicitation and the prohibition against making promises of particular conduct when on the bench.

The dollar amounts at issue here were low compared to races for the state Supreme Court.  Singletary had been making requests for $20 donations, and he only raised $285 during the event in question.  But that doesn’t matter, because he implied that the donations would result in favorable treatment for the donors once he reached the bench.  As the Legal Intelligencer reports (subscription required):

During his donation solicitation, Singletary asked the bikers, according to court papers: “‘Now you all want me to get there, you’re all going to need my hook-up, right?’”. . . .

The court. . .  concluded that: “No one, hearing this, could fail to understand that respondent was promising that anyone who gave him money would get favorable consideration from him if he was elected judge. This conduct is the pure antithesis of the concept of ‘judge.’”

We’ve reported before that there is a growing public perception that campaign contributions affect decision-making in the courtroom.  Incidents like this only serve to strengthen that perception and further undermine confidence in the impartiality of the courts.

Folks are talking about Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Merit Selection.  The Legal Intelligencer ran a front page article about the hearing, quoting many who testified and noting that Senator Jane Earll plans to reintroduce the legislation in the new session beginning in January 2009. The Legal reported that Merit Selection supporters “argued that while politics can’t be taken out of the judicial selection process, an appointed system will lessen the sway of partisan politics over judicial candidates who must decide judicial controversies impartially.”  The Legal also noted that:

[N]o rights would be taken away in this proposal because Pennsylvania voters will ultimately have the right to approve or disapprove the proposal if the merit selection bill passes both legislative houses in two consecutive sessions, said Lynn Marks, executive director of PMC; Gene Barr, vice president for government relations at the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry; and Edward Lanza, an attorney with Saul Ewing and a member of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Central Pennsylvania’s board.

Our Coalition partner the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry posted this account of the hearing, quoting the testimony of Vice President Gene Barr:

In order to command the absolute respect and confidence of the public at large in an independent, non-partisan judiciary, Pennsylvania needs to move from a partisan election approach driven by special interests and money to one that is based upon one’s qualifications.

And check out Gavel Grab’s post about the hearing.

Lawyers Need to Make Sure New Merit Selection Proposal Becomes Reality
Copyright 2008, The Legal Intelligencer. Reprinted with permission.
The governor supports it. Several legislative committee chairs support it. The statewide chairs of both major parties reportedly support it. So whose fault will it be if we don’t get merit selection this time around?

Nobody understands better than the legal community the importance of merit selection. Particularly at the appellate level, nobody should be a louder or more vocal or more active supporter of merit selection than we, the users of the system.

Continue Reading »