Senate News Update
From Senator Jane Earll
April 7, 2008

Merit Selection of Judges

In the heat of the heat of the 2008 election season, many citizens have grown accustomed to the TV ads, the appeals for campaign donations and everything else that comes when politicians ask for your vote.

While it is to be expected in some races, such actions seem out of place when the race involves candidates for judge. The fact is, judicial elections in Pennsylvania have been moving in a troubling direction in recent years. These elections are becoming increasingly expensive, more divisive and more like elections for other governmental offices.

Judges, however, are not like other governmental officials. They are supposed to be impartial arbiters of justice, and the integrity of the judicial system relies on them being seen as such.  In the 2007 Supreme Court race, each candidate raised well over one million dollars. In attempt to prevent overly-aggressive partisanship, candidates have to follow a judicial canon that prevents them from making anything but vague statements of little use to voters. The rule states:

"Candidates . . . should not make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office," or "make statements that commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court."

This prompts many people to ask: How can voters decide when the candidates can say so little?

In reality, judicial campaigns become more of a battleground for special interest groups seeking the election of a candidate believed to be sympathetic to specific positions, particularly about "hot button" issues.

That's why I support the growing movement to establish a new way for Pennsylvania to choose appellate judges. (Those are judges serving on Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court, and the Supreme Court.)

It would replace the current system of partisan elections, campaigns, fundraising, etc. with a process that combines the best features of appointive and elective systems, and adds a new component -- an independent, bipartisan citizens commission that screens and evaluates potential candidates for the bench. Judges would be selected based on merit.

The citizens commission would recommend qualified candidates to the governor, who would nominate a candidate from the list and send the name to the Senate for confirmation. After a number of years on the bench, the judge would face voters in a nonpartisan, yes-no retention vote.

Polls of Pennsylvania voters, and even judges, show increasing dissatisfaction with the elective process. A disturbingly high percentage of those polled believe that justice is influenced by campaign contributions. Judges express concern about the need to raise funds from the parties and lawyers who appear before them, and the contributors resent the pressure to contribute.

Changing from an elective system to a merit selection system for judges requires amending the state constitution, via legislation and a voter referendum. For more information, visit Pennsylvanians for a Modern Court at www.pmconline.org.

I believe that merit selection is the best system to ensure that the most qualified candidates reach the bench and that we have fair and impartial judges.

As always, if you have questions on this or any state government matter, please do not hesitate to call my office at 814-453-2515.