judgesonmerit.org

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts today announced that a new study by the American Judicature Society confirms Pennsylvanians’ concerns about the problematic role of money in judicial elections. AJS reports that in 2008 and 2009, more than two-thirds of the civil cases decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court included a litigant, lawyer or law firm who previously had made a campaign contribution to at least one of the elected justices.

The AJS  study examined the 112 civil cases decided by the Court in 2008 and 2009 and determined the number of cases in which at least one of the litigants, attorneys, or law firms involved had previously made a contribution to the election campaign of at least one justice.

The degree of overlap between the list of contributors and the list of those appearing before the Court is eye-opening:

• In two-thirds of the cases (67%), at least one of the litigants, lawyers, or law firms had contributed to the election campaign of at least one justice.

• In nearly half of the cases (46%), a single litigant, lawyer, or law firm had contributed to at least four of the six elected justices’ election campaigns.

Malia Reddick, Director of Research and Programs at AJS observed:

We were particularly struck by the number of cases in which the same contributors had made campaign donations to a majority of the Court’s members.

The AJS study does not attempt to determine whether campaign contributors received more favorable rulings. PMC’s Marks explained, however, that:

When one party to a case has contributed to a member of the Court deciding that case, it creates an appearance of influence that causes citizens to doubt the fairness of our judicial system.

Legislation is currently pending in the Pennsylvania legislature to amend the constitution to implement Merit Selection for appellate court judges. “Merit Selection takes money out of the selection process and ensures that we select judges based on their qualifications and experience, not the size of campaign war chests,” concluded PMC’s Marks.

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.

John Baer of the Philadelphia Daily News argued in his column earlier this week that: “THE NASTY RACE for state Supreme Court is making yet another strong case for not electing statewide judges.” Baer notes that the recent dispute between Supreme Court candidates Jack Panella and Joan Orie Melvin over campaign contributions and their current tv ad war (we posted about these ads yesterday) is strong evidence that the way we select judges needs to change.

First Baer picks apart a Panella ad claiming that Melvin is dangerous for women, especially when it comes to their healthcare decisions:

[W]hen I ask, I’m referred to a May Superior Court case involving consensual sex between a physician and a female patient with psychological problems who says she got worse thereafter.

The court ruled in the woman’s favor, suggesting she might well have a case of medical malpractice. Orie Melvin dissented.

Sounds bad. But the dissent was based on interpretation of law as applied in similar cases and suggested that while the (general practitioner) doc’s acts were “unethical,” they don’t constitute medical malpractice. A woman, former Judge Maureen Lally-Green, wrote the dissent and Orie Melvin joined it.

Seems a stretch that disagreeing on points of law in a case of consensual whoopee endangers women’s rights and safety.

Then Baer turns to the Orie Melvin ad that claims Panella is dangerous for children because he served on the Judicial Conduct Board when a complaint related to the Luzerne County scandal was filed:

[Orie Melvin's ad] all but paints [Panella] as personally shackling, imprisoning and feeding gruel to the victims. “Jack Panella could have stopped the abuses,” her ad says.

It’s just that the Associated Press last month quoted the U.S. attorney prosecuting the case as saying the board acted properly in ‘06, quickly forwarding an anonymous complaint. And yesterday, Panella’s campaign released a letter from five former board members saying the same thing. Seems a stretch to lay the collapse of a county system at the feet of a single state judge.

Finally, Baer mocks Orie Melvin’s claims of being a reformer: “Orie Melvin insist[s]“I’m no insider” (which is like Bret Favre saying he’s a rookie since he’s on a new team).”

Baer shifts responsibility back to we the people to do something about all this: “Ask yourself if there just might be a better way to pick the people who sit on our highest court.”

Good question, John.  If voters are honest with themselves, they know the answer is yes. Elections aren’t working; it’s time for Merit Selection.

Paul Capenter of the Allentown Morning Call devoted yesterday’s column to a recap of the judicial scandals in Luzerne County.  Carpenter has strong words for the Pennsylvania judicial system and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in particular:

The appellate system is a comedy routine over which presides the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which, among its other scandals, did everything but back-flips to accommodate the crimes of two Luzerne County judges, who took $2.6 million in payoffs to throw hundreds of juveniles into a commercial juvie jail on flimsy grounds.

Carpenter updates his readers on the continuing investigation in Luzerne County and how various other cases are getting reexamined.  He concludes with a thought about one factor contributing to problems in the judicial system — judicial elections:

Someday, all these exciting episodes will end, probably when Pennsylvania enacts merit selection for appellate court judges — instead of letting party bosses pick judicial candidates. Then we’ll have to go back to watching Jerry Springer.

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.