judgesonmerit.org

Louisiana, like Pennsylvania, is one of only six states that elects all of its judges in partisan elections.  The Shreveport Times editorialized this week in favor of eliminating elections and moving to a merit system, at least for local courts.  Although we are advocating for a change only at the appellate level in Pennsylvania, the editorial points out many of the problems with electing judges.  For example, the money:

Much of the cash for mounting a campaign comes from the legal community and much of the campaign debt is later retired by these same lawyers. Seems like the seeds of a conflict of interest to us when the attorneys in your courtroom may be big contributors.

That’s what we’ve been saying about elections here in Pennsylvania.  Touting the benefits of Merit Selection, the editorial continues:

An alternate system of appointing judges in theory would make selections based upon qualifications rather than political or social connections. Local bar associations or review commissions would look only at lawyers with established minimum years experience and assess their competency with expert eyes. A merit system also reduces the influence of politics and money in judicial elections.

We wish them good luck in Louisiana, and we hope the people of Pennsylvania will get the chance to decide whether to change how we pick our appellate judges.

An opinion piece in The Harvard Crimson points out that four states are in the midst of partisan elections to pick judges for their highest courts. In calling for a move away from partisan election of judges, the author highlights the problem of “judicial candidates [receiving] contributions from firms or attorneys who will potentially present cases, or at least play a role, in their prospective courtrooms”

We agree with the author when she says that we need to reform the way we select judges. Merit Selection gets appellate judges out of the fundraising business. It will help to ensure a fair and impartial judiciary, free from the appearance of bias.

The results of a Tulane University study suggest that, at least in Louisiana, campaign contributions to judges are a good way to get an advantage in the court room. The researchers looked at how often each justice on the state’s Supreme Court voted for plaintiffs and defendants. Then, they looked to see if those votes tended to change when a campaign donor was among the parties or lawyers involved.

Not surprisingly, justices voted in favor of campaign donors far more often than non-donors. It also appears that the tendency increased with the size of the donation. To read more about campaign money and its influence on justice in Louisiana, click here. (free, requires registration)