judgesonmerit.org

Recently, we posted about a Texas Supreme Court decision that was drawing headlines because all nine of the justices had accepted campaign contributions from the winning party. Now, another Texas court decision is making news for similar reasons.

An appeals court in Texas recently overturned a verdict against a large drug company. What’s raising eyebrows is the fact that all three of the judges on the panel have taken campaign donations from law firms representing the victorious defendant.

The reaction of the attorney representing the plaintiff underscores the big-money problem with judicial elections. From the AP story:

[Attorney W. Mark Lanier] said the ruling demonstrates that Texas should not have elected judges, asserting it was “outrageous” that all three judges on the appellate panel took campaign contributions from law firms involved in defending Merck.

Would you want to go to court, knowing that the lawyer or law firm you were up against had given money to the presiding judge or judges? It’s understandable that litigants in such circumstances are concerned that campaign contributions may influence verdicts. The problem is not whether or not there is such an influence; the perception that there could be reduces public confidence in the courts and undermines the judicial process.

It’s time for Pennsylvania to remove campaign money from the judicial equation. We can do this by adopting Merit Selection for the appellate courts.

In a May 6th editorial, the Austin American-Statesman discussed a Texas Supreme Court ruling in favor of builder Bob Perry, who had donated thousands of dollars to the campaigns of every justice on the court. The paper concluded that “it is impossible not to be cynical about the poisonous effect of money on justice.”

When thousands of dollars are flowing to judicial candidates, their fairness and impartiality are in doubt. And a ruling like the one favoring a huge donor like Perry undermines the ideal of judicial integrity, even if the decision is on sound legal footing.

The American-Statesman recognizes that court rulings in favor of big campaign donors, no matter how correct or just, are tainted with questions and uncertainty about whether the money influenced the decision. This undermines public confidence in the courts.

Merit Selection solves this dilemma. It gets judges out of the fundraising business. It will help ensure that Pennsylvania’s appellate judges can’t be accused of favoring campaign donors in their decisions. Such accusations have recently been made in West Virginia, and now in Texas. Switching to Merit Selection of Pennsylvania’s appellate judges will make sure that can’t happen here.

A recent ruling by the Texas Supreme Court is getting folks talking about the corrosive effect that judicial campaign contributions have on public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of judges. The court threw out an arbitration award against a Houston homebuilder named Bob Perry, who also happens to be the most prolific campaign contributor in the state. Every justice on the nine member panel has received a contribution from Perry or his family, for a total of over $260,000.

Critics in Texas are speaking out, calling this a case of “big money influencing elected judges.” Are they right? Who knows?

No one can say for sure if campaign money influenced the decision, and it doesn’t really matter. The problem is the perception this process creates. We can understand why a litigant, facing an opponent who has given thousands of dollars to a judge, would not be confident that his or her rights will be impartially protected.

Pennsylvania, like Texas, elects all judges in expensive partisan elections, where lawyers, law firms and organizations with cases in the state courts donate to judicial campaigns. We’ve got to get the money out of the process of selecting appellate court judges.

An opinion piece in The Harvard Crimson points out that four states are in the midst of partisan elections to pick judges for their highest courts. In calling for a move away from partisan election of judges, the author highlights the problem of “judicial candidates [receiving] contributions from firms or attorneys who will potentially present cases, or at least play a role, in their prospective courtrooms”

We agree with the author when she says that we need to reform the way we select judges. Merit Selection gets appellate judges out of the fundraising business. It will help to ensure a fair and impartial judiciary, free from the appearance of bias.

  In late January, a consumer watchdog group called Texas Watch filed ethics complaints against three Texas Supreme Court Justices. The complaints allege that the justices violated state judicial ethics rules by using campaign contributions to reimburse themselves for personal travel.

  While we’ll need to wait for the results of the investigation, these justices are far from the first to be accused of improperly dipping into a large campaign war chest. Under Merit Selection, judicial campaign contributions, and the temptation to misuse them, are eliminated.

More information about the ethics complaints is available here and here.