judgesonmerit.org

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.

An article about campaign financing in a state legislative race raises ethical issues that echo concerns about judicial campaigns. Candidate Todd Stephens is a Montgomery County assistant district attorney. His opponent’s campaign charges that Stephens is accepting campaign donations from defense attorneys and law firms whose clients he’s scheduled to prosecute.

Shira Goodman, associate director for Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, was interviewed for the story, and she explained that “Stephens faces the same challenge as those running for judge.”

Who else is going to give money to judicial campaigns? Not the general public. [Candidates] are going to raise money from people they know in the community and from those they know through work … those who believe they would do a good job.

Stephens hasn’t broken any laws, nor has he violated any policy of the district attorney’s office. The article doesn’t offer any evidence that he’s done his job differently since he started accepting campaign donations. Yet he’s facing questions about his integrity, based on contributions from donors who may simply be supporting their colleague’s political aspirations.

Judges face an even thornier dilemma when they’re forced to raise gobs of campaign money in order to win elections. Unlike legislators, judges are supposed to be impartial, applying the law fairly, even if it conflicts with their political philosophies. Campaign donations from attorneys, or entities that spend a lot of time litigating, create the perception that money might have some effect on a judge’s impartiality.

As spending on judicial campaigns continues to increase, the ethics of judges are questioned. Decisions involving donors are scrutinized and second-guessed. Public confidence in the fairness of the judiciary erodes.

Merit Selection solves the donation dilemma for judicial candidates. There can’t be a perception of influence from campaign donors if becoming a judge doesn’t require waging an expensive political campaign. It’s time that we brought Merit Selection of appellate judges to Pennsylvania, so that the public can have confidence in the impartiality of our appellate courts, and appellate judges can take the bench without fear of the donation dilemma.

In a poignant letter published in the Leader-Telegram, one Wisconsin voter describes how disillusioned recent judicial elections have left him:

The last two state Supreme Court races have destroyed the respect I once had [for the judicial branch]. These races are by law supposed to be nonpartisan, but these last two races have been closer to a cattle auction than any elections I have ever seen.

This captures the essence of the problem with judicial elections. Because of the partisanship and money involved, regular people lose confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. The third branch of government has neither the power of the sword nor the purse. Its power stems from the trust of the people. By electing judges, we squander that trust.

The Wisconsin voter laments, “Wisconsin may be the national leader of the worst examples of how not to select the top judicial leaders of state government.” Hopefully, Pennsylvanians will choose Merit Selection for the appellate courts and avoid similar disillusionment and further erosion in public confidence in the courts.

Donald Hoffman, a freelance columnist, has written a thoughtful piece in the Allentown Morning Call on the need for reform and improvement throughout Pennsylvania’s state government. He’s included a concise summary of the advantages of Merit Selection:

Every judicial election, voters choose judges who’ve maneuvered the path of partisan politics but whose names they’ve never heard of. Judges should be nominated by the executive [and] scrutinized for approval by legislators, and serve independently of political party bosses and campaigns.

Well put. Hoffman identifies two areas that Merit Selection addresses better than partisan elections: seating the most qualified judges, and having judges decide cases impartially.

In the Merit Selection system that’s been proposed for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts, the state senate would evaluate nominees who have also been vetted by a nonpartisan citizen-based nominating commission and the governor. These three stages of evaluation help ensure that we get superior jurists on the bench. Then, those judges stand before the public in nonpartisan retention elections; first after a four-year term and every ten years thereafter.

The benefits of so many layers of evaluation and scrutiny don’t just mean that we get the most qualified judges on the appellate courts. It also enables the judges to serve impartially, removed from the influence of special interests that contribute to judicial election campaigns.

We’re happy to see Merit Selection included as part of a call for meaningful reform in Pennsylvania government.

In a weekend commentary in the St. Louis Dispatch, Missouri Bar President Charlie J. Harris praises the judicial selection system used in Missouri, the model for many other Merit Selection plans and proposals:

No million-dollar campaigns, no vicious attack ads. . . . The beauty of the plan is that judicial candidates don’t have to curry the favor of either political party or prowl about for campaign contributions. What judicial candidates do need are impeccable credentials, a strong understanding of the law and the standing within the legal profession and their community to gain the trust and respect of others.

Harris contrasted the situation in Missouri with the ugly judicial elections in many states, such as Pennsylvania, noting: “In those states, voters are barraged by demeaning political attack ads, designed to destroy the opposing candidate’s credibility. The content of those ads encourages the public to think poorly of the candidate, and the money behind the ads raises serious concerns.”

The proposal to bring Merit Selection to Pennsylvania includes a framework based on the Missouri Plan, modified to reflect the unique cultural and political history of Pennsylvania. We hope Pennsylvania will soon join states like Missouri that choose their appellate court judges through Merit Selection.

Another Mississippi newspaper is warning about the effects of massive campaign donations on the justice dispensed in the state’s appellate courts. An editorial in the Greenwood Commonwealth considers recent trends in verdicts issued by the Mississippi Supreme Court, and suggests that campaign contributions might be influencing the Court’s decisions. “For the coming elections,” the paper warns, “voters should educate themselves on who is contributing to whom because that’s a good sign as to how they’ll rule if elected.”

The piece offers a solution that would remove any suggestion that campaign contributions influence verdicts: do away with elections for appellate judges.

What is needed on the court, of course, are fair-minded jurists who are not beholden to big contributors… This could be better accomplished through a system of appointing, rather than electing, appellate court judges.

Merit Selection does exactly that. Merit Selected judges don’t have to raise campaign funds, so any apperance of bias toward campaign donors is eliminated. It’s time to bring Merit Selection to Pennsylvania, so that our appellate judges can rule based on the law, free from any suggestion that they’re just following the money.

A June 29th editorial in Jackson, Mississippi’s Clarion-Ledger shows how wealthy interests on either side of a single issue - tort reform - have twisted elections for the state’s Supreme Court. These elections have become a million-dollar sparring ground, where big bank accounts battle to influence judicial policy, and the interests of ordinary citizens and impartial justice are consigned to the bleachers.

Both sides - plaintiffs’ attorneys and the business/medical community - have too much riding on the outcome of cases not to spend big bucks on these campaigns. Left out and ignored, however, are the poor, the voiceless and those who don’t have enough money for political action committees or lobbyists.

When judicial elections become multi-million dollar endeavors, winning a seat on the bench can become a fundraising contest. Smart, fair-minded and experienced candidates are locked out of the system if they can’t generate the level of donations necessary to compete.

Opponents of judicial selection reform like to present themselves as the champions of the people, fighting to preserve the rights of citizens. But often, what they’re really trying to protect is the ability of wealthy campaign donors to decide who makes it to the bench.

Merit Selection of appellate judges short-circuits the influence of big campaign donations. Because candidates are evaluated on their knowledge and experience, Merit Selection gives qualified people who can’t raise gobs of campaign cash a shot at becoming a judge. The appellate bench will be open to people from all backgrounds, and all areas of the state, with knowledge of and respect for the law as the primary criteria for membership.

As the Pioneer Press explains in an editorial about interim judicial appointees, Minnesota judges “usually take office via a gubernatorial appointment, but then must win re-election to stay in office. This makes it a unique office, out of the flow of daily partisan politics but subject to being sucked in at any moment.” The editorial praises the interim appointment system as a better way to select impartial judges:

Judges should be appointed based on merit and not on political calculus. Fairness, experience and integrity are paramount virtues. We love political battling in legislative races but do not want judicial candidates to be cozying up to interest groups, declaring their views on issues pending before them or attacking foes on television. We want Minnesotans to believe that the judge before whom they are appearing is there for the right reasons and will apply the law impartially.

This is a good summary of the goals of Merit Selection advocates. We want an appellate bench staffed by judges who know and respect the law, and who will apply it without regard to popular opinion, political whims, or the pressures of campaign donors.

Merit Selection is the system designed to accomplish this. While no system can entirely remove politics from judicial selection, Merit Selection frees the process from ever-increasing campaign spending and the exaggerated value of political savvy over ability and experience.

The Wisconsin State Journal has an excellent editorial answering readers’ comments about its recent endorsement of Merit Selection. The editorial addresses many of the recurring arguments and myths we hear from opponents of judicial selection reform. For example:

Q. Why do you want to take away our right to elect our justices?

A: A better question is: Why should we use elections, designed to cater to partisan views and to reflect the will of the majority, to select justices who are supposed to be impartial and to protect the rights of the minority?

Think of it this way: Do you believe football fans should vote on who referees Green Bay Packers games? What happens when the Packers play the Bears? Will Chicago fans outvote the Wisconsin faithful?

Or should the National Football League select officials based on league evaluations of their expertise, impartiality and previous performance?

The piece addresses other common Merit misconceptions, including the roll of politics in Merit Selection, and the non-existent conspiracy to end elections for all government officials. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in learning more about Merit Selection.

Iowa has used a merit selection process since 1962. Although their process is not perfect, observing judicial elections in sister states has confirmed for Iowans that they made the right choice. A June 11, 2008, editorial in The Des Moines Register addresses the problem of money in judicial elections:

Candidates must raise big money from potential litigants and law firms, and they wage campaigns that may suggest promising to take certain legal positions in exchange for votes.

This summary hits the nail on the head. No party or attorney wants to try her case against opposing counsel who has made monetary contributions to the presiding judge. No ethical judge will base her decision on which attorney’s pockets were deeper, of course. But the appearance of impropriety threatens to sully any elected judge’s reputation and threatens the judiciary’s unbiased, neutral reputation overall.

As the editorial notes, “Politics cannot be completely removed from judicial selection, but politics should not dominate, lest candidates be expected to make promises about how they will rule.”

We agree with this wise assessment. And though we can’t get politics completely out of the process of selecting appellate court judges, we can get the money out. We should follow Iowa’s good example and choose Merit Selection.