judgesonmerit.org

We’re hearing calls for Merit Selection down in Mississippi. An editorial in the Clarion Ledger cites recent scandals and increasing campaign costs as reasons to consider moving away from electing judges. Lawyers in the state bar association and the Federalist Society are calling for reform, but there will need to be a big public education effort to convince the public: “the biggest hurdle is general Mississippi tradition of wanting to vote on everything and everybody.”

To combat this common argument against Merit Selection, the author argues:

The reality is voters don’t know very much about judicial candidates, or enough. We have a system that allows inordinate influence by special-interest money. Believe me, dear voters, you aren’t really picking judges. The major races are carefully choreographed: who runs, who gets financed. You just pull the levers.

We understand that it’s very difficult to change from an elective system, but this author points out in stark terms why voting for judges doesn’t really make sense.

After a year and a half of debate and revision, a bill to start the process of bringing Merit Selection to the appellate courts of Washington has stalled in a committee of the Washington House of Representatives. Seattle attorney and blogger Rand Koler, who writes extensively about the Washington judiciary, has been following with interest the progress of the Merit Selection proposal. He believes, as we do, that “our system of government depends on an independent judicial branch, free — to the extent possible — from the influence of lobbyists, special interests and generally the sway of money.”

HB 2150 has support and sponsors on both sides of the political aisle. As an amendment to the Washington constitution, it would have allowed the state’s voters to weigh in on their preferred method for selecting appellate judges. Unfortunately, it’s been sidelined by the House Rules Committee, and Committee Chair Frank Chopp has exercised his power to keep the bill from coming up for a vote.

It’s unfortunate that this reform effort has, at least for now, been tabled. We hope that someone can prevail upon Mr. Chopp to allow his colleagues in the legislature, and the people of Washington, the chance to vote on this Merit Selection proposal.

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.

On Friday, April 4th, Dan Pero of AmericanCourthouse.com posted two items critical of our perspective on judicial selection of appellate judges in Pennsylvania. We’ve said all along that reasonable people can disagree about judicial selection. We started this blog to encourage discussion about the subject, and we’re gratified that Mr. Pero believes the issue to be important. However, we wish he would stop trying to mislead his readers.

In his swipes at Merit Selection, Mr. Pero returns again and again to the same hollow argument. He insists there is a conspiracy afoot to “take away” the right of the citizens of Pennsylvania to vote for appellate judges.

No matter how many times Mr. Pero and other critics of Merit Selection repeat this mantra, no one can take away the current elective system from the citizens of Pennsylvania. The state Constitution can only be amended after the voters pass a referendum to authorize the change. Like other Merit Selection critics, Mr. Pero ignores this fact.

We can only adopt a Merit Selection system for Pennsylvania’s appellate judges if the people of Pennsylvania vote for it. The only thing we want to “take away” from the people is the false impression that anyone can implement Merit Selection in Pennsylvania without popular consent.