judgesonmerit.org

Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro Cortes announced today that the first ever statewide vote recount will be held to determine the winners for Superior Court. According to a press release available on Capitol Wire:

Act 97 of 2004 provides that any statewide race or ballot question where the margin of victory was less than one-half of 1 percent of the total number of votes cast for that office or ballot question would trigger a recount in all 67 counties. The act also allows affected candidates to submit a written request to opt out of a recount.

This affects three candidates — Democrats Robert Coleville and Kevin McCarthy and Republican Templeton Smith, Jr., all of whom are trailing Democrat Anne Lazarus within the margin of voters that triggers the recount.  Coleville and McCarthy voluntarily opted out of the recount, but Smith did not do so, even after being granted an extension of time in which to consider whether to opt out.

The recount will begin November 18 and must be completed by November 25, with results to be submitted by November 30. Secretary Cortes estimates that the recount may cost up to $1.3 million.

The Associated Press reported that a runoff election for the 4^th seat on the state Superior Court could begin this coming Monday, unless one of the three trailing candidates, Temp Smith, waives his right to the recount by tomorrow.

State law provides that an automatic recount is triggered if any candidate trails the winner by less than one-half of 1 percent, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. All three trailing candidates would have to waive their right to a recount to stop the automatic process. To date, two of the three (Allegheny County Judge Robert J. Colville (D) and Allegheny County Assistant District Attorney Kevin F. McCarthy (D)) have sent in letters saying that they will waive their rights if all the others do as well.  Mt. Lebanon lawyer Temp Smith (R) is the only candidate who has not yet waived. If the elections results stand, Judge Anne Lazarus (D) will take the 4^th seat, leading 5^th place contender Judge Colville by a mere 2,006 votes.

Judge Colville explained his reasoning for deciding to waive his right in his letter, cited by the Post-Gazette; he does not believe there was any fraud or error, and a recount is therefore unlikely to change the results. And,

‘More importantly, I am advised that the cost of the recount is estimated at approximately $1.3 million, which cost would be borne by Pennsylvania taxpayers,’ he wrote. ‘In these troubled economic times, it would be unacceptable for me to elevate my personal professional aspirations above legitimate considerations of prudent government fiscal management.’”

We’ll keep you posted on developments.

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.”

2009 is a judicial election year in Pennsylvania.  It will be a busy one here, as Pennsylvanians will be electing a Supreme Court Justice, three Superior Court judges, two Commonwealth Court judges, and many more trial level judges.

We’ll be watching and keeping track of the money, and waiting to see if the United States Supreme Court changes the rules of the game  as it considers and decides Caperton v. Massey. We’re anticipating that 2009 will break the fundraising records set in 2007, when four candidates for the Supreme Court raised almost eight million dollars.

As this all proceeds, we will continue to work to bring Merit Selection to the appellate courts, and hope that some time in the near future there will be an election that gives the people of Pennsylvania the chance to vote on whether to change the way we choose our appellate court judges.

Yesterday’s Metro featured an article about the effort to bring Merit Selection to Pennsylvania. While the article identified some of the problems of judicial elections and some of the benefits of Merit Selection, it mistakenly implied that the current Merit Selection legislation would affect all courts in Pennsylvania. The fact is, we are working for Merit Selection of the three statewide appellate courts only.

There are three appellate courts in Pennsylvania — the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts. There are 31 appellate judges, out of a total of 1,048 judges in Pennsylvania.

The problems with judicial elections — the lack of emphasis on candidates’ qualifications, the huge sums of money raised from parties likely to appear before the judges in the future, and the lack of opportunities for qualified candidates of all backgrounds — are more pronounced at the level of the appellate courts.

As a result, the current reform effort is focused on changing the way we select this part of the judiciary. The trial courts, including the Courts of Common Pleas, Municipal Courts, Magisterial District Judge Courts, and Traffic Courts, would not be affected.