judgesonmerit.org

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.

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts today announced that the 2009 Supreme Court election between Republican Joan Orie Melvin (the winning candidate) and Democrat Jack Panella is likely to set new fundraising and spending records.  The final numbers are not yet in, as candidates can continue to raise funds until the end of the year.  But we can now report that the Supreme Court election cost at least $4.5 million, and PMC believes the total is significantly higher.

PMC’s press release documents fundraising and spending by the candidates’ campaigns, but notes that although they together raised and spent over $3.6 million, that is not the whole money story.  Instead, we found it necessary to research who else was spending money on the election.

The answer was political bodies, incuding the state Republican Party, the state Democratic Party, and the Republican Senate Committee.  In fact, the state Republican Party directly funded Judge Orie Melvin’s television campaign, to the tune of at least $975,849.  This means the state Party outspent the candidate’s own campaign.

Reports also reveal that from January 1, 2009 until November 23, 2009, the state Republican Party spent at least four million more and the state Democratic Party spent close to $2 million. Although the parties were not required to identify the candidates on whom they spent money, it seems reasonable to assume that a good portion of that six million dollars was directed to the Supreme Court election.

Pennsylvania had the nation’s most expensive Supreme Court elections in the 2007-08 election cycle, and the available data is leading elections experts to predict that Pennsylvania will again earn that title for 2009-10.   As PMC’s Lynn Marks explained, “Pennsylvanians should not take pride in leading the nation in spending for judicial elections.  Each dollar raised and spent raises yet another doubt in voters’ minds about whether or not justice is for sale.”

For those of you who are fans of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and also facebook users, there’s an easy way to help PMC while you’re busy on facebook. Chase Charitable Giving is running a challenge that will award $5 million to small nonprofits. The first stage will award $25,000 to the 100 nonprofits who get the most votes on facebook.  Please vote for PMC in this challenge.  Voting ends today, and you get 20 votes — we only need one.

Vote Now by clicking here:

Voting ends on December 11th!

If you are on Facebook, here’s all you will need to do to vote:

Instructions:

1) Click here: http://apps.facebook.com/chasecommunitygiving/charities/781338

2) After clicking on the link above, Facebook will ask you if you want to “Allow Access” to Chase Community Giving (CCG).

3) Click the “Allow” button (note – you can always remove the application from your account after you vote, but it is not an annoying application, as some can be).

4) This will bring you to our page on the CCG Facebook site.

5) In order to vote, you must click the “Become a Fan” button. This will make you a “fan” of CCG.

6) Vote for PMC by clicking the “Vote for Charity” button with the handprint image.

Thanks for your support. Remember, voting ends today!

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell began a 3-month tour of the state in which he is calling for sweeping changes, intended to overhaul the notoriously broken political process in the state.  Appropriately, the Governor began his education campaign in Luzerne County, where judicial corruption of an unprecedented scale has damaged the public’s confidence in government at all levels, but particularly in the judiciary.

One of the three core-changes the Governor is targeting to purge corruption from state politics is to switch to merit selection of appellate court judges. Speaking to various audiences, including the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader editorial board, the Scranton Chamber of Commerce, and students at Wilkes University, the Governor highlighted two of the serious flaws with our current system of judicial selection: confusion in the voting booth, and money. The Times-Leader reported:

‘People don’t have a clue who they are voting for,’ Rendell said. ‘In an exit poll conducted five years ago, voters were asked five minutes after they voted to name any of the judicial candidates they voted for, and 50 percent couldn’t remember one.’”

Rendell also criticized political campaign donations to judges. ‘Who gives money to judicial candidates? It’s lawyers, for the most part,’ he said.”

The antidote the Governor proposed is to put qualified judges on the bench through a system of merit selection, where they will be untainted by the corrupting influence of money that Luzernites are, unfortunately, all too familiar with.

This message was music to the ears of Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC), an organization which has long been calling for Pennsylvania to adopt merit selection for the appellate courts. As PMC’s Lynn Marks explained:

‘Merit selection focuses on getting the most qualified candidates on the bench, offers an opportunity for qualified men and women of all backgrounds from all over Pennsylvania to serve and gets judges out of the fundraising business.’”

The other changes proposed in the Governor’s plan are to implement campaign-finance reform for elected politicians to limit the influence of lobbyists on the state’s lawmakers, and to prevent incumbent legislators from maintaining their power through absurd reapportionment of voting districts.

You will recall that in the just-passed race for a vacant seat on the state’s Supreme Court, vast sums of money were spent on negative advertising. According to many commentators, the race was particularly important to the political parties this year because of the reapportionment issue. In a state like ours, where judges hang party labels after their names (we are one of 6 states that elect judges at all levels in partisan elections), the Supreme Court’s role in deciding contested reapportionment questions becomes a political question and Supreme Court elections become tempting targets for the influence of big money.

We are delighted that Governor Rendell is bringing the problems with electing judges front and center, and think there is no better place to launch this message than a county that has felt first-hand what hell can be wrought by judges tainted by the influence of money.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today explores whether voters can sort through and make decisions about nine candidates running for the Superior Court, one of two intermediate appellate courts in Pennsylvania:

There are 15 positions on the Superior Court bench, and four are open this year.

But in a judicial race like this, it is likely that voters know little about the nine candidates from around the state who are vying for a seat.

“The person who really wants to be responsible about it really has to work hard,” Ms. Goodman [of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts] said.

That means reading online profiles, seeking out bar association recommendations and watching available debates.

But G. Terry Madonna, a political analyst at Franklin & Marshall College, doesn’t expect much of that to happen this year.

“These candidates will not be known to the voters,” he said. “They won’t recognize their names, let alone what they stand for.”

This is troubling, because it can discourage voters from participating in these elections.  Traditionally, voter turn-out in judicial election years is low.  And, many who do show up to vote for other offices, such as District Attorney or County Commissioner, often throw up their hands and decide to leave the judicial section of the ballot blank.

The problem is, the decision about who serves on our appellate courts is very important.

That’s why Ms. Goodman’s organization supports judicial merit selection rather than election of judges.

“Judges have a really important role in our society,” she said. “Their decisions affect everybody. The courts have far-reaching power, and voters don’t really think about that until they are in court.”

We’ve been talking about the poisonous influence of money in judicial elections for a long time.  Now, the candidates are talking about it, too.

According to John Micek over at Capitol Ideas, Supreme Court candidate Joan Orie Melvin made this a topic of her address to the Press Club today.  She complained about the $1 million contributed to the campaign of her opponent Jack Panella by the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers’ PAC, the Committee for a Better Tomorrow. When asked about the $125,000 she also accepted from the PAC, she “claimed there was no comparison between the money she accepted from the trial bar and the money her competitor received.”

But Orie Melvin’s initial characterization of the contributions to her opponent offers a more convincing take on the perception contributions to judicial elections create: “”It’s pay-to-play, it’s justice for sale.’” This is surely what the public sees when the money is discussed, and it doesn’t matter how much is at issue.  It’s the fact of the contribution that makes an impression on the public.

Micek concludes his post with a discussion with PMC’s Shira Goodman:

What matters. . . is the public perception that money buys access to courtrooms – period.

“In our mind, enough is enough already,” she said.

We’ve always tried to make the point that judges are different from other public officials. As such, they should be selected differently. The way it stands now, we treat judicial candidates pretty much like other candidates.  Doing so makes it harder for the public — and even the judges themselves — to recognize the special role judges play in our system of government.  The more we blur the lines before judges reach the bench, the more blurred the lines stay.  Putting on the robe can’t be a single magic moment.  The entire process of becoming a judge should speak to the special nature of the judicial function.  Money is poison.

There’s been great coverage around the state of the debate Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) co-sponsored with the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and students at Temple’s Beasley School of Law.  Lynn Marks, executive director of PMC, after a glowing introduction by Beasley’s Dean JoAnne Epps, moderated the panel of questioners. PMC’s associate director Shira Goodman, also of JudgesOnMerit.org, was one of four panelists who asked the candidates questions.  The panel did not pull any punches, and neither did the candidates.  See the coverage below for more details.

Newspapers

Philadelphia:

• Philadelphia Inquirer: Candidates for Pa. Supreme Court debate; By Tom Infield, October 23, 2009 (nice picture of our own Lynn Marks!).
• Philadelphia Daily News: West meets East in Supreme Court debate dustup; By John Baer, October 23, 2009
• Legal Intelligencer: High Court Candidates Spar, Subtly, at Only Debate; (Subscription Required)

State:

• Allentown Morning Call: Supreme Court candidates make case at debate in Philadelphia; AP coverage of debate, October 23, 2009
• Centre Daily Times: Pa. high court hopefuls debate; AP coverage of debate, October 23, 2009
• Indiana Gazette (Indiana, PA): Court candidates clash in debate; AP coverage of debate, October 23, 2009
• Lebanon Daily News: 2 Pa. Supreme Court candidates clash in debate; AP coverage of debate, October 22, 2009
• Carlisle Sentinel: 2 Pa. Supreme Court candidates clash in debate; AP coverage of debate, October 22, 2009
• Times-Leader: 2 Pa. Supreme Court candidates clash in debate; AP coverage of debate, October 22, 2009
• York Daily Record: 2 Pa. Supreme Court candidates clash in debate; AP coverage of debate, October 22, 2009

Radio/TV:

• PCNTV.com
• WHYY.org (NPR): Judges debate campaign finances in race; By Susan Phillips, October 23rd, 2009 (audio clips from debate).
• WHYY.org (NPR): Candidates vie to join PA Supreme Court; By Susan Phillips, October 22nd, 2009.
• DUQ 90.5FM (Pittsburgh NPR): Supreme Court Candidates Debate; FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2009

Blogs/Internet Services:

• CBS3.com: 2 Pa. Supreme Court Candidates Clash In Debate; Kathy Matheson, Associated Press Writer
• KDKA.com: 2 Pa. Supreme Court Candidates Clash In Debate; Kathy Matheson, Associated Press Writer
• GavelGrab: High Court Candidates Debate in Pa.; Peter Hardin, October 22, 2009
• GavelGrab: ‘Justice for Sale’ a Topic in Pa. Judicial Debate; Peter Hardin, October 23, 2009
• Capitolwire.com (Subscription Service) Pa. Supreme Court candidates duel over campaign contributions during Thursday debate.
• Mention on Phillyist.com.

Usually judicial candidates — even those who support Merit Selection — are hesitant to criticize the electoral process or call for reform during the election season.  But yesterday, Supreme Court candidate (and current Superior Court Judge) Jack Panella, in an address to the Pennsylvania Press Club, noted that he believes there is a better way to select judges in Pennsylvania.  As the Associated Press reports:

Panella said he respects the efforts of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a group[] that advocates that state appellate judges be appointed by the governor from a list recommended by a public commission.

He says he strongly supports the concept because it would take fundraising and political bosses out of the selection process.

Judge Panella’s comments underscore some of the big problems of the judicial election system.  Because he speaks with inside, first-hand knowledge of the process, his comments about the role of money and politics are particulary instructive.  If a judge who’s already been elected to one appellate court and is now running again for a seat on the highest court of the state thinks the process needs reform, maybe it’s time for more work to be done to ensure that Pennsylvania uses the best system to select appellate judges.

The Times Leader, serving Northeastern Pennsylvania, published a commentary piece by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts this weekend addressing how to increase public confidence in our courts.  There has been a string of cases involving judges getting into criminal and/or ethical trouble, most recently a scandal involving two judges in Luzerne County.  PMC offered three suggestions for restoring public confidence:

First, our judicial discipline system must be strong, independent, willing and able to mete out strict discipline when necessary – even if it means stripping someone of the privilege of serving as a judge. . . .  Second, our bar leaders and court leadership should express outrage – on behalf of the people – at criminal and unethical conduct by judges. . . . Finally, Pennsylvanians should move forward with a constitutional amendment to change the way we select judges.

The third suggestion requires systemic reform, legislative action and broad public support.  We believe the outcome would be worth the effort:

We already know that many Pennsylvanians are concerned about the pernicious effect of money in judicial campaigns. We must get money out of the system of selecting judges and focus on qualifications, experience and the highest ethical standards. Elections, unfortunately, don’t emphasize these factors. We need a system that does.

An editorial introducing our piece called our suggestions “worth studying.”  We hope that Pennsylvanians will agree that it’s time to look for real solutions.

In an op-ed in the Patriot-News, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) argues that a series of cases involving illegal and/or unethical conduct by Pennsylvania judges has further diminished public confidence in the courts.  Even though these cases involve individual judges who made bad choices and exercised poor judgment, they damage the judiciary as a whole:

Public confidence in the courts has been undermined. Not that the level of public confidence was that high to begin with. Research reveals that nearly 90 percent of Pennsylvanians believe campaign contributions affect judicial decisions. Look at that closely — nine out of 10 Pennsylvanians think that judges do not separate what happened during their political campaigns from how they rule in the courtroom. Combined with a general mistrust of public officials, particularly in light of the 2005 pay raise, this adds up to a disturbingly low level of public confidence in judges and, by extension, the justice system as a whole.

PMC proposes three steps to restore public confidence in the courts and the judiciary.  First, the judicial discipline system must remain strong and independent.  Second, PMC calls for court leaders and bar leaders to make a strong statement condemning illegal and unethical conduct by judges.  The third recommendation is for Pennsylvania to adopt a Merit Selection system for choosing judges:

We already know that many Pennsylvanians are concerned about the pernicious effect of money in judicial campaigns. We must get money out of the system of selecting judges and focus on qualifications, experience and the highest ethical standards.

Pennsylvania has to deal with a serious problem.  The actions of a few have harmed the entire court system.  For the court system to be effective, the public must be confident that justice will be dispensed honestly, fairly and impartially:

Judges serve the public. The public’s confidence in the judicial system is fragile but necessary in a democracy. The Legislature and the Supreme Court must act now to restore public confidence. And we all must be vigilant in ensuring that our public servants are serving the public.