judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in the Washington Post makes some very good points about the trouble with electing judges.  Focused on the effort to expand Merit Selection to more judges in Maryland, the editorial is good reading for folks in any state where judges are elected — like here in Pennsylvania.

Elections, campaign contributions and the inevitable conflicts of interest they breed have no place in the selection of judges. For judges, drumming up campaign money — often from lawyers who appear before them — and marketing themselves undermines the perception of impartiality and can in practice lead to its corrosion.

These concerns of course become more pronounced as elections become more expensive, candidates raise more money from parties and lawyers who later appear before them in court, and third parties like political parties, corporations and unions unleash their own dollars to get their preferred candidates elected.

We expect judges to act differently from other public officials — to be faithful to the law without regard to popular opinion, political pressure, or campaign support.   Why, then, do we continue to use the same expensive, divisive, partisan electoral process to choose these very different officials?  The Washington Post offers a fine reason to stop doing so:

Judges are not — and should never be confused with — politicians. Insulating those who serve on the bench from the potentially corrosive influence of money and politics would help to avert cases of mistaken identity.

Merit Selection offers a fine way to avoid such confusion.  If we stop electing appellate court judges, cases of mistaken identity may still come before our courts but at least will no longer involve our judges.

In an editorial in the Times Union (upstate New York), Abbe Gluck and Victor Kovner, members of the Board of New York’s Fund for Modern Courts argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United should cause states to seriously consider replacing judicial elections with Merit Selection.  They write that opening the doors to greater financial participation in judicial elections by unions and corporations

[P]lainly jeopardizes the independence of much of our state judiciary. Plainly, the sense that judges may be beholden to financial donors — whether actual or even just perceived — undermines public confidence in our courts.

We share this concern and know that we are not alone in thinking that public perception is critical — in fact, when it comes to the courts, perception is basically reality.

The writers go on to explain:

Apart from any restraints on corporate contributions that may be adopted by Congress, it is up to individual states to close the gaping hole the court opened, and amend their state constitutions to end judicial elections. Whatever limits the Citizens United majority held that the federal Constitution imposes on corporate expenditures in judicial elections, nothing in the decision limits state governments from eliminating those elections in the first place.

This is a critical point.  The people have the right to choose the best way to select judges.  Nothing requires judicial elections.  As Justice O’Connor pointed out during the Georgetown Law-Aspen Institute Conference last week, our Founding Fathers placed great value on an independent judiciary and chose not to elect federal changes.  At that time, most states did not elect judges either.

The article concludes with an interesting note about Justice O’Connor and her unique insights into the issue of judicial selection: “It is no small detail that she is the only living U.S. Supreme Court justice who also has served as an elected state court judge.”  Justice O’Connor knows what it means to an elected judge, and she is urging states to reject judicial elections. Pennsylvanians should pay attention.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has proposed an order ruling that judges can’t be forced to recuse themselves from hearing a case solely on account of having received a campaign contribution from one of the litigants. The order offers a valid argument supporting this rule:

Disqualifying a judge from participating in a proceeding solely because the judge’s campaign committee received a lawful contribution would create the impression that receipt of a contribution automatically impairs the judge’s integrity. It would have the effect of discouraging ‘the broadest possible participation in financing campaigns by all citizens of the state’ through voluntary contributions . . . because it would deprive citizens who lawfully contribute to judicial campaigns, whether individually or through an organization, of access to the judges they help elect . . . .

Can’t deny that – it’s certainly a problem.

The problem is, not disqualifying a judge who receives money from a litigant creates an even worse impression: that justice can be bought. In no other country can a litigant give money to a judge without committing bribery (the US is the only country with jurisdictions that elect appellate judges). Of course we are not equating contributing to a judicial campaign with an act of bribery, but it sure may feel that way to a litigant who did not contribute a hefty sum to the judge when her opponent did.

There is a profoundly elegant solution to this otherwise intractable mind-twister. Stop electing judges. There, that was easy.

Incidentally, the article points out that the order comes at a time when the court is being slammed with requests that Justice Michael Gabelman recuse himself from all criminal cases because of statements he made during his campaign that basically equated defending accused criminals with supporting crime. The truthiness of those claims were almost grounds for having Gabelman removed from the court altogether. Race-to-the-bottom campaign statements are just another reason why judges don’t belong in elections.

HT: How Appealing

A recent report by the nonprofit, nonpartisan National Institute for Money in State Politics shows that money and incumbency were the two largest factors in determining the results of judicial elections.  Candidates running in partisan elections, where contenders are backed by political parties, averaged as much as triple the money raised by those running in non-partisan or retention elections

The study reinforces what has long been known to critics of Pennsylvania’s own system of electing judges in partisan contests.  Namely, that money plays an overly-determinative role in judicial elections.  Oftentimes this money comes in the form of campaign donations from individuals who may subsequently appear before the elected judge.

Incidentally, the Institute study comes on the heels of a report by PMC  on the record amounts spent in the most recent Supreme Court race. The election cost at least $4.5 million and possibly more than twice that when all of the political party spending is accounted for.

Fundraising prowess weighs heavily on a candidate’ s ability to win an election, and may add some value to the consideration of a political candidate, but should bear little on one’s capacity to be a fair and effective judge.   A switch to Merit Selection would eliminate the influence of money on judicial selection and shift the focus back to finding the most qualified individuals for the job.

In a letter to the Philadelphia Daily News today, bar association chancellor Scott F. Cooper emphasized the importance of changing the way we select appellate court judges. Writing in support of last week’s editorial on Merit Selection, Chancellor Cooper emphasized the unavoidable problem of money in judicial elections:

The judicial system in Pennsylvania operates in spite of the elections that require candidates to collect millions in campaign contributions. Justice simply can’t be served when citizens question the ability of judges to be impartial when their donors appear before them. In a country based on rule of law, the courts must not only be immune to financial influences, the public must see them that way.

Cooper noted that Merit Selection carries the endorsement of the Bar Association, as well as that of Governor Rendell and numerous watchdog groups, including PMC. Public support is crucial to enacting reform. A switch to Merit Selection will require a public vote to amend the state constitution. Cooper argued that citizens should have the opportunity to speak out on the matter:

Pennsylvanians deserve the chance to lend their voice to this important debate. They should be allowed to decide on this constitutional change. And the time for that is now.

Well put Chancellor Cooper.

WDUQ, Pittsburgh’s flagship NPR station, aired this piece earlier this week about the growing support for the Merit Selection of judges in Pennsylvania. The station cited PMC’s support of the current legislation before the state House of Representatives and quoted PMC Chairman Robert C. Heim decrying the problem with mixing money and judicial selection. Regarding the $3 million-plus raised by the 2 Supreme Court candidates in this past election (and the $4.5 million spent, including over $1 million spent by the Republican Party on television ads for victorious candidate Judge Joan Orie Melvin), Heim said:

“Most of it came from lawyers. Lawyers who are going to have their matters entertained and judged by the people to whom they were contributing money.”

The only truly effective way of taking money out of the equation is to stop treating judges like politicians, and implement a judicial selection process, like Merit Selection, in which there is no campaigning.

A newspaper in Fort-Worth, Texas published an editorial this past Friday challenging Texans to reconsider the way they select judges. Noting that Texas has the dubious distinction of being “among a handful of states that elect all their judges in partisan elections” (along with Pennsylvania, Alabama, West Virginia, Illinois, and Louisiana), the paper calls on its citizens to “use this next year to examine and debate a new judicial selection system that the state legislature can adopt when it meets in 2011.”

The editorial noted that in some states “where judicial elections have devolved into money-driven battles of ugly TV ads,” including Pennsylvania, “sentiment for change is building.” The perception of the role of money in elections is a primary reason for a change to Merit Selection. After citing the $4.5 million spent on the recent Supreme Court race in PA as reported by PMC, the paper noted:

The biggest problem is that judges and candidates for the bench must raise campaign money primarily from lawyers, groups and individuals who might have cases before those same courts. In statewide races, the sums can be enormous. It leaves the public wondering whether money is buying influence.

Referencing other problems with electing judges, the Star-Telegram asked rhetorically:

Who doesn’t want fairness, impartiality and justice when they go into court?

Who doesn’t want qualified, capable, independent judges deciding disputes?

Who honestly believes that the only way to achieve that is to elect judges through expensive campaigns that do more to undermine public confidence than to provide voter education about the judiciary?

Good questions. The first step in the process was set in motion at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee’s Sub-Committee on Courts late last year.  If the state houses pass the legislation currently before committee in two consecutive sessions, the voters will have the ultimate say whether to amend the state constitution to make this important change to the way we select judges.

An editorial in today’s Philadelphia Daily News urges that Merit Selection is a much needed reform.  Discussing the very expensive 2009 Supreme Court elections and the Luzerne County Courthouse scandal,  the Daily News writes:

Welcome to the darker side of the Pennsylvania judiciary, a side that will continue to stay dark as long as we elect judges. . . .

The editorial discusses the danger of fundraising in judicial campaigns, the too important role of the political parties in determining who reaches the bench, and the lack of relevant information for voters trying to decide who should be a judge.

The editorial closes with a shout-out to PMC:

The need for reform is clear. The advocacy group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts has been a steady voice calling for merit selection through a constitutional amendment.

Retired federal judge Lee Sarokin praises Merit Selection in his latest contribution to the Huffington Post. He first notes the big problem of money in judicial elections:

Can you imagine a lawyer or litigant walking up to the bench in the middle of a trial and handing the judge a check as a campaign contribution?! Is it any less unseemly if the check was delivered a week or a month before? This is the by-product of judicial elections. The campaigns themselves have become political, demeaning and adversarial. As in any election, there are those who contribute merely to advance the candidacy of someone in whom they believe, but for many there is an expectation or a perception of a quid pro quo. How else does one explain contributions to both of two rival candidates?

He writes that while not perfect, Merit Selection systems using nominating commissions have a track record of putting well-qualified judges on the bench. He believes Merit Selection works better than the money-influenced electoral system, especially because of the lack of relevant information available to the voters.

Sarokin also deflates the argument that elections ensure judges are accountable to the people. He argues that judges are not supposed to be responsive or accountable to the public will, but rather to the laws and the constitution.  Elections can undermine this principle:

Judges should not be treated like American Idol contestants. One of the principal roles of the judiciary is to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Election of judges reverses that noble goal and demeans the judiciary. The influence of money should have no place in our judicial system.

Well put.

An editorial in the Times-Tribune of Scranton quotes PMC’s analysis of the cost of the 2009 Pennsylvania Supreme Court election, noting:

Pennsylvania once again leads the nation, as it did in the 2007-2008 election cycle, in the cost of statewide judicial elections. But there is a twist this time, in that the cost is in much more than money alone.

The editorial goes on to detail the heavy spending by the state political parties and other special interests, and notes that the political parties paid special attention this year because of the Supreme Court’s likely role in the upcoming dispute over legislative redistricting.

Then, the editorial recounts new allegations about improper fundraising activities by State Senator Jane Orie on behalf of her sister Joan Orie Melvin’s campaign for Supreme Court.  The editorial includes the Senator’s accusations that the probe is politically motivated by the District Attorney (son of a former Supreme Court justice who now works for the gaming industry) in retaliation for the Senator’s anti-gambling stance.  The editorial astutely observes:

All of that is the sort of inside political baseball for which Pennsylvania is infamous. But the point is that Pennsylvanians shouldn’t have to worry about those back stories if they have business before an appellate court.

This, of course, is the key point.  When you go to court to have your disputes resolved, you want them resolved according to the law and the facts.  Political calculations, campaign donations, personal vendettas — none of this has any role in the way judges are supposed to decide cases. The problem is, electing appellate court judges the same way we elect political office holders makes it hard to believe that justice and the law prevail in our courtrooms.

The editorial closes with this call to action, which we hope will soon be heeded:

Bills are pending in both houses to begin the process of amending the state constitution to establish merit appointment of appellate judges. Lawmakers should initiate the change.