judgesonmerit.org

Published by Dan Smith under Merit Selection

Greg Hinz of Crain’s Chicago Business recently reported that two leading candidates for the Illinois Supreme Court have received a significant percentage of their respective campaign funds from a single law firm donor each. Incumbent Mary Jane Theis has collected around $70,000 from attorneys at Kirkland & Ellis, a large Chicago firm. Meanwhile, challenger Joy Cunningham has collected over $30,000 from attorneys at Pavalon & Gifford, a small personal injury firm. These contributions constitute about 10% and 5% of the candidates’ campaign funds, respectively.

Cunningham has said that, if elected, she would recuse herself from “any case where there is anything that would even cause the appearance of impropriety”. Theis already recuses herself from cases involving Kirkland & Ellis due to other connections with the firm. But as Hinz sees it,

[w]hen judges have to consider recusing themselves because of where they got their campaign cash, you know that something fundamental is wrong with the judicial system. When that’s the case with the state’s highest court, it’s especially worrisome.

We share the author’s concerns and believe that the solution to the “money problem” is Merit Selection, which gets judges out of the fundraising business altogether and eliminates the problem of having campaign contributors appear before judges they helped to elect.

Published by Dan Smith under Merit Selection

An editorial in Scranton’s Times-Tribune has called for Pennsylvania’s legislature to adopt the Merit Selection proposal considered at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee last week. In evaluating the proposal, the editorial’s author reasoned:

Perfect? Of course not; it’s simply superior to the current system, by which fundraising, geography, ethnic identification, ballot position and other factors are more important than qualifications in selecting judges by election.

The piece states that the ongoing political corruption trial of Sen. Orie and related investigation of Justice Orie Melvin “should add urgency to the switch to merit selection” since they have “demonstrated why the change is crucial.” The author points out that Justice Orie Melvin originally reached her position on the state Supreme Court via “the most expensive judicial race in Pennsylvania history”. The editorial concludes that the Merit Selection proposal would “diminish the importance of political considerations in selecting appellate judges who, in office, are supposed to be apolitical.” We hope that even more voices come forward to urge the legislature to let Pennsylvanians decide how we want to pick out judges.

Published by Sean MacPhee under Judges,Judicial Elections,Merit Selection

A piece by the Editorial Board of the Philadelphia Inquirer urges Justice Joan Orie Melvin to step aside during the probe into allegations of illegal campaign practices, which is currently focused on the retrial of her sister, State Senator Joan Orie.

New testimony indicates that Orie and Melvin jointly ordered an aide to remove materials that “might connect the judge-elect to campaign work improperly conducted in Orie’s office,” according to the editorial. A third sister, Janine Orie (who worked in then-Judge Orie Melvin’s chambers), is charged and awaiting retrial. And while Melvin herself has not been charged with anything, it was reported earlier this year that she is the target of a grand jury investigation into whether state workers illegally aided her election bid. She has recused herself from hearing any Allegheny County criminal cases while her sisters face charges, but the editorial suggests that the effort, while proper, doesn’t go far enough. Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts reiterated its earlier call for the justice to step aside until the investigations are resolved, and Pittsburgh law professor John Burkoff now agrees that the Justice’s presence on the court “casts a cloud over all of the court’s deliberations.”

The editorial observes that no matter how Melvin’s case is resolved, the problems with Pennsylvania’s current model of partisan judicial elections have become all too apparent. “Regardless of the trial’s outcome, the allegations of illegal campaign work underscore the problem with electing the state’s most powerful judges in partisan contests that require millions in campaign donations. If nothing else,” the editorial concludes, “the focus on Melvin and her sisters should jump-start a switch to a merit-based system of appointment for the appellate bench.”

Published by Dan Smith under Merit Selection

Essential Public Radio 90.5 hosted a discussion over the weekend about the Merit Selection bills (HB 1815 and 1816) currently pending in the Pennsylvania legislature. After summarizing the logistics necessary to pass the bills as well as their details, the program offered opinions supporting and opposing court reform. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Ron Marsico (R-Dauphin Co.), who opened the Committee’s Merit Selection hearing in Philadelphia last Thursday, said partisan judicial elections can lead to a public perception that judges are being bought and sold. Marsico offered that “many times, statewide, the electoral system comes down to who can raise the most money and produce the best ads and campaign the hardest. Really, none of these qualities are relevant to being a good judge and relevant to the judicial system.”

Mark Phenicie from the Pennsylvania Association of Justice (formerly the PA Trial Lawyers Association) opposed Merit Selection on the grounds that the current system produces good judges, and reform is unnecessary. Lynn Marks, Executive Director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, countered that Merit Selection would promote the judiciary’s impartiality by removing the real or perceived influence of campaign contributions on judges. Marks defended the composition of the bills’ proposed statewide judicial nominating committee, which “has been put together so that nobody can control the process, and the public still has a role in a merit selection system.”

For more information about Merit Selection and the recent hearing of the House Judiciary Committee in Philadelphia, please visit judgesonmerit.org.

Published by Shira Goodman under Judges,Judicial Elections,Merit Selection,Opinion

In the wake of Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearings on Merit Selection for the appellate courts, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News have each published editorials calling for Merit Selection.

Following a recap of the hearing and a brief discourse on local and state-wide judges whose conduct has been the subject of news reports and disciplinary action, the Daily News concludes:

Fixing this broken system will take time, since it would require legislation and a constitutional amendment, which itself requires a referendum.

Still, this has been an idea already debated for years. How many poster children for tainted justice do we need before we get action? That action can start with letting your state lawmaker know it’s time to get campaign money out of the courts.

The Inquirer opines that the proposed legislation would address the “twin problems with the state’s system of electing all of its judges: the corrupting influence of campaigns and fund-raising, and whether voters are adequately equipped to choose qualified candidates for the bench.”

As PMC and PMCAction pointed out during the hearing, passing the legislation will not change the way we select judges. Instead, it puts the issue to the people: changing the constitution requires a public referendum. The legislature can give the people this opportunity by passing the legislation in two successive sessions. We believe it’s time to let the people decide whether there is a better way to select our appellate court judges.

Published by Shira Goodman under Judges,Judicial Elections,Merit Selection,Opinion

Following today’s Philadelphia Inquirer pro-Merit Selection editorial, is an on-line SAy What Poll asking whether it’s time to change to Merit Selection. (You have to scroll to the bottom of the page). There are four options: two for yes and two for no:

Time to end the election of appellate judges in Pennsylvania?
Yes, civic, legal, business and religious groups favor reform
No, appointed judges aren’t independent, either
Yes, voters have shown they know little about candidates’ qualifications
No, appointing judges means select few get to decide

We hope you will vote YES and choose the reason that best reflects your views! It is time to let the people of Pennsylvania decide whether there is a better way to choose our judges — that is what the pending legislation will do: empower the public to make this decision.

Published by Dan Smith under Merit Selection

Members from Pennsylvania House’s Judiciary Committee heard testimony yesterday from a wide spectrum of organizations on bills introducing a Merit Selection system for appellate judges, as supporters provided evidence in the form of statistics and personal experiences to demonstrate the proposed system’s advantages over the current system of partisan elections. Representative Bryan Cutler (R- Lancaster), the main sponsor for both bills, began the hearing by voicing his concern for “the integrity of the judicial system and how the political process may affect that”, adding that “I personally believe that the issue of selecting a judge really should come down to judicial qualifications as opposed to who spends the most money, who has the highest name ID, or who happens to turn out the highest percentage of their party.”

The proposed Merit Selection system received strong support from nearly all testifying witnesses. Eric Tilles, President of the Delaware Valley Chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel (DELVACCA), testified that members of his organization

rely on Pennsylvania to provide courts whose judiciary is exceptionally well qualified, and…whose impartiality is beyond appearance of being compromised. Requiring judges to run political campaigns denigrates the courts and creates a public perception that judges are beholden to one interest group or another…Merit selection eliminates the need for judges to seek out campaign contributions, many times from special interest groups or from those lawyers who will be practicing before them.

Shira Goodman, Deputy Director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts/PMC Action, advocated for Merit Selection as the best solution available to “get judges out of the fundraising business” without simply hoping that there will be a “magic moment when the robe goes on and all the campaigning and the money goes away.” PMC’s Executive Director Lynn Marks added that “[p]eople need to believe they get a fair shake in the courts. No system is void of politics, but Pennsylvanians deserve a system designed to seat the most qualified judges possible.”

Walter M. Phillips, Jr. lamented that the current system has forced judicial candidates to garner votes by associating themselves with some of the commonwealth’s most infamously corrupt political operatives.  “As long as we have a system of electing judges” Phillips asserted, “we will always have, and can expect to have, not only the infusion of vast sums of money, but the involvement of those who have gone to jail for violating the public trust.”

Bishop Mary Floyd Palmer of the Philadelphia Council of Clergy and Michael Walker from the Urban League of Philadelphia testified on Merit Selection’s ability to remedy the alarming lack of diversity among Pennsylvania’s appellate judiciary. Walker warned the members of the Committee that

the courts of this Commonwealth continue to exclude certain groups from decision making posts and exclude perspectives of the traditionally disenfranchised. ….Merit Selection offers opportunities for qualified candidates without access to money and from diverse backgrounds to reach the bench.

Members representing Justice at Stake, the American Judicature Society, the League of Women’s Voters, the Philadelphia Bar Association, and the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association also testified on behalf of Merit Selection. Many other organizations that support Merit Selection submitted written comments  which the Judiciary Committee entered into the hearing’s official record.

The hearing’s chair, Representative Glen Grell (R-Cumberland), said that a full assembly of the Judiciary Committee would deliberate on the Merit Selection bills in the upcoming session. Said Bob Heim of PMC, “we want to give the citizens the right to vote on what kind of system they want for selecting their judges, and it’s just that simple.”

Links to all of yesterday’s testimony will soon be posted on a new page about the hearing.

Published by Sean MacPhee under Merit Selection

Philadelphia (March 1, 2012) – The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing today on legislation to replace the partisan election of appellate judges with a Merit Selection system. The hearing will take place from 1:30 to-3:30 pm at the National Constitution Center, Kirby Auditorium, 525 Arch Street in Philadelphia.  Many representatives of the broad statewide coalition of civic, legal, business and religious groups that supports Merit Selection will testify in person or through written testimony. PMC and PMCAction’s testimony is available here.

Merit Selection is designed to ensure that the most qualified, fair and impartial judges reach the appellate bench.  Merit Selection also reduces the influence of money and opens up pathways to the bench for qualified Pennsylvanians from all regions and of all backgrounds.

As Lynn A. Marks, Executive Director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction, explained, “Pennsylvanians question the fairness of our courts because of the pervasive concern that campaign contributions affect how judges make decisions.  We need to get judges out of the fundraising business.”

Shira Goodman, Deputy Director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction, noted that “The electoral system, which rewards fundraising success, campaign trail charisma, and random factors, such as good ballot position, a familiar name, and coming from a region with high voter turnout, is broken.  Pennsylvanians are looking to find a better way to choose appellate court judges.”

Changing to Merit Selection requires a constitutional amendment.  The proposed Constitutional amendment (HB-1815) can be read here, and the implementing legislation (HB-1816) here.  The legislature must pass the bills in two consecutive sessions and then the people would vote in a referendum.

The proposals apply to only the three statewide appellate courts (Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts) and not the local trial courts. The constitutional amendment would create a 15-member citizens-based Nominating Commission to screen candidates and develop a short list of potential nominees for the governor.  Following nomination by the governor and confirmation by the state Senate, a judge would serve an initial term of 4 years and then stand before voters in a nonpartisan retention election.  Voters would decide at that point, and every 10 years thereafter, whether the judge should stay on the bench.

PMC and PMCAction praised prime sponsor Rep. Bryan Cutler, R-Lancaster, for working to create a better system for selecting appellate judges, and thanked Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Ron Marsico, R-Dauphin, for scheduling the hearing.  Rep. Cutler explained why he has taken leadership on this issue: “I believe that merit selection is an important issue to put before the voters in the form of a constitutional amendment.  I believe that by changing the selection process we will ensure that judges are selected on their qualifications and not other unrelated factors.”

A 2010 poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies revealed that ninety-three percent (93%) of Pennsylvanians surveyed want the opportunity to vote on whether to change the way we choose appellate court judges.  As Marks explained, “This hearing is a crucial step in the process that will culminate in the people of Pennsylvania deciding for themselves in a referendum election whether they think there is a better way to choose our appellate judges. Only the people can change their constitution.”

Others presenting testimony include:  League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania; Urban League; Delaware Valley Chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel; Philadelphia Bar Association; American Judicature Society; Philadelphia Council of Clergy; Justice at Stake; Retired Judge Phyllis W. Beck; Attorney Walter Phillips; PA Manufacturers’ Association; Law Professor Randy Lee.  Other organizations and individuals are submitting written testimony.

A live webstream of the event will be available at RepCutler.com.

Published by Shira Goodman under Judges,Judicial Elections,Merit Selection,Merit Selection News

A Public Hearing on Merit Selection  (HB 1815 and 1816) will be held by the PA House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, March 1st from 1:30-3:30 pm, at the National Constitution Center, Kirby Auditorium, 525 Arch Street, Philadelphia.  We know from public polling that Pennsylvanians want the chance to weigh in on the question of how we choose our appellate judges.  This hearing is a critical step in the process that can culminate in the people of Pennsylvania having the opportunity to vote on whether to change how we choose appellate court judges.

Among those expected to attend are:

• Rep. Ron Marsico (R-Lower Paxton), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
• Rep. Bryan Cutler (R-Peach Bottom)
• Eric A. Tilles, Esq., president of the DELVACCA chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel
• Kathleen D. Wilkinson, chancellor-elect of the Philadelphia Bar Association
• Representatives from Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction
• K.O. Myers, Director of Research and Programs for the American Judicature Society
• Bishop Mary Floyd Palmer, Pastor, Philadelphia Council of Clergy
• Matthew Berg, Director of State Affairs for Justice at Stake
• Charlotte Glauser, Judicial Specialist with the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania
• The Honorable Phyllis W. Beck, retired judge
• Walter M. Phillips, Jr., Esquire
• David N. Taylor, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association
• Michael Walker, the Urban League
• Randy Lee, Professor of Law, Widener Law School

Please consider attending. If anyone would like to submit written comments, please contact Michael Fink as soon as possible at mfink@pahousegop.com.  Comments will be accepted until the morning of February 29th and copies will be distributed at the hearing and made part of the record.

Published by Dan Smith under Merit Selection

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that Kansas’ state Senate has defeated legislation that would have changed the state’s system for selecting appellate judges from a merit selection system with a nominating commission to a system of direct appointment by the governor and senate confirmation. By a vote of 22-17, a bipartisan coalition of senators defeated Senate Bill 83, which had passed through Kansas’s House of Representatives last year at the urging of special interest groups and supporters of Gov. Sam Brownback.

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Democrat, had argued that “[t]his motion is an egregious effort to politicize judicial appointments” and that “[t]he judiciary as an independent and co-equal branch of government was designed to provide stability against the political winds.” With no lack of support from across the aisle in the Republican-controlled Senate, Hensley’s defense of merit selection prevailed. We applaud the resolution of the Kansas state Senate to preserve merit selection, a system we feel is well-suited to separating politics from our justice system and maintaining checks and balances between branches of government. Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee will hold a merit selection hearing of its own on March 1 in Philadelphia to discuss the proposed adoption of the system in Pennsylvania.