In Pennsylvania politics, change often comes slowly. This isn't necessarily bad. A measured pace ensures legislators have time to listen to constituents and that the public supports the proposed changes. Sometimes, however, the process needs a jumpstart.

When it comes to changing the way Pennsylvania selects appellate judges, the public makes the ultimate decision. Partisan judicial elections are written into the state Constitution. That document can only be amended if Pennsylvanians vote for change.

Recently, bills were introduced in the Senate by Sen. Jane Earll, with strong support from Sen. Anthony Williams, and in the House by Rep. David Steil, with his co-chair on the Speaker's Reform Commission, Rep. Josh Shapiro. These bills propose replacing partisan elections of appellate judges with merit selection.

This is the first step in amending the Constitution. Passage of this legislation will allow Pennsylvanians to vote in a referendum on how they want to choose appellate judges. The Legislature cannot change the system on its own -- the public must vote for merit selection.

Judicial elections aren't designed to select the most qualified and experienced judges. Elections reward fundraising ability and campaign skills, and too often, appellate judges are elected based on name recognition, ballot position, expensive TV ads, political affiliation or hometown. People with excellent qualifications may have little or no opportunity to serve on the appellate

Advertisement
courts.

Judicial elections also are becoming increasingly expensive. During the 2007 Pennsylvania Supreme Court race, candidates raised almost $8 million -- a state record. Much of the money comes from attorneys, special interest groups and others who may later stand before the judges in court. No rules prevent a judge from presiding over a case in which a campaign contributor is involved as a party or attorney.

This creates the impression that judges' decisions can be influenced by campaign contributions. As retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted, "We put cash in the courtrooms, and it's just wrong."

Polls show Pennsylvanians are losing confidence in the justice system, largely because of partisan campaigning and the influence of money. They're asking whether we should select appellate judges another way.

Merit selection offers a solution. It gets judges out of the fundraising business and makes qualifications the most important factor for becoming an appellate judge. It opens pathways to the bench for qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds, who may not have access to political influence or financial resources. This should give Pennsylvanians more confidence in the ability, fairness and impartiality of appellate courts.

Reasonable people can disagree about the best way to select judges. What's troubling is that opponents of merit selection want to prevent people from having their say on the issue. They claim merit selection "takes away the vote," while ignoring that only the voters can change how we pick our judges. The pending legislation starts the process that culminates with people voting on whether to adopt merit selection. If the legislation is defeated, the public will be denied the opportunity to vote on which system of judicial selection is right for Pennsylvania.

It's time to let Pennsylvanians decide whether expensive, partisan elections are the best way to pick appellate court judges. Legislators should be encouraged to pass this proposed constitutional amendment and put merit selection on the ballot so that we -- the voters of Pennsylvania -- can decide for ourselves how to choose appellate court judges.


Lynn A. Marks is executive director and Shira Goodman is associate director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction, statewide nonpartisan court reform organizations.