judgesonmerit.org

Late last week, Governor Rendell nominated a new slate to fill interim vacancies on Pennsylvania’s appellate courts. From early reports, it seems likely that the new slate — Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan for the Supreme Court, Northampton County President Judge Robert A. Freedberg and McKean County President Judge John M. Cleland for Superior Court, and Philadelphia lawyer Johnny J. Butler for Comonwealth Court — will be confirmed in the near future. This follows months of political wrangling and the Senate’s rejection of the Governor’s first slate of nominees.

PMC/PMCAction Executive Director Lynn Marks warns: “This interim appointment process should not be confused with what is known as a merit selection system just because both require nomination by the Governor and Senate confirmation. . . . They are both very different and the jockeying we have seen for the last few months is another example of why we should change the way we appoint appellate judges.”

JudgesOnMerit.org is a project of Pennsylvanians For Modern Courts and PMCAction. We believe that Merit Selection is a better way to choose Pennsylvania’s appellate judges.

Merit Selection provides pathways to the appellate bench for candidates of diverse backgrounds who are experienced lawyers and jurists.  Qualifications and skills are the key factors in determining who reaches the appellate bench in a Merit Selection system.

Merit Selection removes campaign donations from the judicial selection process, allowing appellate judges to be chosen based on their qualifications and experience. By getting judges out of the fundraising business, Merit Selection promises appellate courts free from the perception of potential bias toward campaign contributors.

If you’d like to add your name or organization to the growing list of supporters of Merit Selection in Pennsylvania, we’d love to hear from you. Please fill out & return the Supporter Form, or contact us at info@pmcaction.org.

Once again, we’re faced with opponents who fail to recognize the inconsistencies in their own positions. In a recent post attacking Merit Selection, Dan Pero of American Courthouse demonstrates that he really prefers a judicial selection system that involves no direct public participation at all.

He’s talking about the federal system, a pure appointment system. The president nominates a judge, who then must be confirmed by the Senate. If confirmed, the judge serves for life. There’s no retention process; the judge never goes before the public in any sort of election or evaluative process.

Under Merit Selection, by contrast, after an initial four year term on the bench, the appellate judge would stand before the public in a retention election. The public would have the ultimate opportunity to determine whether the judge should continue to serve for a full ten-year term. This process is repeated every ten years thereafter (until the judge voluntarily resigns or reaches the mandatory retirement age).

We understand that the President (who nominates) and the Senators (who confirm) are elected representatives of the people and that the people are therefore represented in the federal process. We agree, and point out that this is also true in Merit Selection where the Governor nominates and the Senators confirm. But retention offers a direct role for the public to weigh in on whether the judge should remain on the bench.

So, when you’re talking about democracy and a role for the people, Merit Selection offers more than the federal system.

Voices Of Merit is an occasional series featuring insights from places where Merit Selection is already at work.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, Superior Court judges have been chosen by Merit Selection since 1974, after a voter-ratified constitutional change. The court publishes a brochure with the straightforward title Merit Selection Of Judges. It explains how the switch to Merit Selection has helped to create a court of skilled, diverse and fair-minded judges, “free from political debts that supporters may expect to be paid.” These are exactly the goals we have in mind for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

As the campaign for Merit Selection progresses, we hear some inaccurate arguments repeated by those who oppose Merit Selection. In an effort to set the record straight, we’ll reveal the truth and clear up these myths.

Myth #6: Merit Selection supporters want to do away with all elections.

This is a favorite scare tactic of opponents of Merit Selection, usually worded as a question; “While we’re at it, why not replace election of the governor or the legislature with Merit Selection too?” It suggests, falsely, that supporters of Merit Selection of appellate judges plan to somehow create a world where nobody votes for anything, and the entire government is appointed rather than elected.

The truth is that Merit Selection supporters aren’t trying to replace election of all public officials. We think that Merit Selection is a better way to select appellate judges because judges are different from other elected officials. Judges are sworn to act impartially, to apply the law without regard for personal preference, political pressure or the interests of campaign contributors.

Impartiality isn’t a requirement for other officials, like governors, senators, representatives and mayors. Candidates for those offices make promises in order to raise money and win votes. Donors give money to these campaigns with the expectation that the candidates will vote or act a certain way if elected.

Because the judiciary has to place the law above all other considerations, it’s different from the other branches of government. It doesn’t make sense to treat judges like political officials up until the moment they start doing their jobs. Instead, we should be treating judges differently from the moment they seek to join the bench.

Merit Selection supporters want to ensure a fair, impartial judiciary for all citizens. To that end, we’re seeking to change only how appellate judges are selected. Don’t let anyone tell you any different.

Keep visiting JudgesOnMerit.org to learn the truth about Merit Selection.

In his Philadelphia Daily News column, John Baer laments the lack of legislative action on various reform proposals. Baer notes that some reform measures passed, such as the Open Records law, but argues that “these merely bring Pennsylvania a few of the basics of a decent democracy. Efforts at real reform lie dying.”

Baer is correct. We’re approaching the summer recess with many issues still in a holding pattern. Several of these issues require constitutional amendments, which must be passed before the summer recess in order to have enough time for the constitutionally-mandated publication to occur. This includes both legislative redistricting and Merit Selection of appellate judges.

There’s still time left for real reform. Legislative hearings where different groups could discuss Merit Selection would be an excellent step forward. As the pressure to pass the new budget becomes more urgent, its important that our state legislators know that we want reform to stay on the agenda. Tell them it’s not too late.

In an opinion piece in Madison’s Capital Times, Common Cause in Wisconsin director Jay Heck predicts “the most ugly and expensive state Supreme Court election in Wisconsin’s history in 2009.” This after last years’ race, which saw special interest groups outspending the candidates by a factor of 11 to 1 on television ads.

Pennsylvania is in a similar situation. In 2007, a Virginia-based special interest group spent over a million dollars on ads supporting one candidate for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Because the ads didn’t use key words like “vote for” or “elect,” the sponsoring group was found not to be subject to Pennsylvania’s regulations governing corporate campaign contributions.

The best way to combat the inevitable influx of special interest money is to get money out of the process of selecting appellate judges. Merit Selection of appellate judges makes qualifications, not campaign spending, the most important thing for a judicial candidate. We need to make this change in Pennsylvania, before our judicial elections become the ugly ones.

A recent Philadelphia Inquirer editorial urged the state legislature to stay on track and not get diverted from pursuing important reform legislation, such as legislative redistricting. We share the Inquirer’s concern that this legislative session is winding down with precious little action on some critical issues that affect the way we run our government.

Our primary concern is Merit Selection of appellate judges. Bills to amend the constitution have been referred to the Judiciary Committees in both houses. Passage of such bills is the first step toward letting Pennsylvanians vote in a referendum on how to choose appellate judges.

But first, we need a hearing. Please tell your legislators — particularly Judiciary Committee members and committee chairs Senator Greenleaf and Representative Caltagirone — that you want a chance to vote on changing how we choose appellate judges.

Sometimes, we’re asked whether it’s possible to fix the electoral system, rather than changing to Merit Selection. Our critics often argue that we’d do better to improve voter education when it comes to judicial elections. We agree that voter education is a critical issue, and PMC spends considerable time, energy and resources on voter education initiatives during judicial election cycles. But, we remain convinced that even greatly improved voter education isn’t enough to salvage the elective system. We’re not alone in this assessment.

Blogger David Giacalone at f/k/a parses a discussion about the benefits of increased voter education, and reasons that Merit Selection is the best way to overcome the influence of money on judicial selection.

In their May 15th cover story about the effort to bring Merit Selection of appellate judges to Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Public Record rehashed the old argument that Merit Selection supporters are conspiring to take away the right to vote for appellate judges. In an effort to set the Record straight, we wrote a letter to its editor. It was published in the May 29th edition, and is available online. As intern K.O. Myers explained, “Reasonable people can disagree about the best way to select appellate judges, but the voters of Pennsylvania should have the opportunity to weigh in on the issue. That’s all we’re asking for.”