Its main purpose is to take away our constitutionally guaranteed right to vote for judges and give that right to a 14-member "nominating committee," with a majority (eight) appointed by the governor and the majority and minority leaders of the state Senate and House.

The other six are to be appointed by special-interest groups: a union, a non-lawyer professional association, a business organization, a public-safety organization, a civic group and a law-school dean. The proposal would take away our right to determine the merits of judicial candidates and give that right to the appointees of Harrisburg politicians and special interests.

And that's supposed to be non-political "merit selection"?

The nominating committee will operate in secrecy, not subject to Pennsylvania's sunshine laws. We get to learn who the five finalists are when the list is submitted to the governor.

As for the "merit" part, individuals must get eight votes in the committee. That adds up to the four appointed by the governor and the four by the legislative majority and minority leaders.

Those nominated must be licensed lawyers who have practiced law, served as a judge or engaged in a law-related occupation for 10 years. They must demonstrate "integrity, judicial temperament, professional competence and experience and commitment to the community." None of those terms are defined.

Is the governor's good buddy - who's contributed substantial time and money to the governor's political career, and is head of a law firm that represents large corporations and who's active in the Chamber of Commerce and the state bar - meritorious?

Is the solo practitioner - who does a great job representing poor people in a rural area for minimal fees but doesn't make enough money to contribute to politicians or join bar associations - less meritorious?

The demographics of the United States are finally in favor of men of color and women of all colors. In the state's fall elections, women won three of the four open appellate-court seats. On the national scene, the Democratic candidate for president will be a man of color or a woman.

As for trusting the chief executive, in this case Gov. Rendell, to choose from a "merit" slate, Rendell just picked four older white males for interim appellate appointments.

And there are some more troubling connections to this anti-democratic movement. Rendell and the legislature, in a midnight raid, brought us legalized gambling - making Pennsylvania the only state in the nation to do so without a referendum. As for the legislature, several of its members and leadership are being investigated for illegal bonuses. Sen. Vincent Fumo, a leading proponent of "merit," is under a multi-count indictment.

Let's look at the group behind this effort for 20 years, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts.

It is part of a nationwide consortium of similar groups seeking to take away our right to vote. They are supported by large law firms and corporations and their highly paid employees.

They also receive money from out-of- state organizations dedicated to a nation-al effort to take away our right to vote for judges.

The two leading voices for Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts are Lynn Marks, who's been working at taking away the right to vote for judges since 1990, and Shira Goodman.

They join with bar associations and other groups to push their agenda. I consider them paid lobbyists, even though that's not how they present themselves in their speeches and writings.

They claim that taking away our right to vote is a good thing because, first, we don't know how to vote right, and, second, elections are too expensive.

The first argument is insulting. I know exactly who I'm voting for. Their response is, But you're an educated, intelligent person. This clearly implies that all those other voters are uneducated and dumb.

As for the second argument, we can and should specifically address the problem of cost.

BUT THIS ISSUE is not one of rich vs. poor, Republicans vs. Democrats, educated vs. uneducated. It is one pitting those who believe in democracy vs. those who don't. It's the majority vs. the elitists.

We don't know what's good for us, so we should vote to amend the state constitution to let a 14-member committee decide what's good.

Why stop at taking away the right to vote for appellate judges? The same arguments can be made by a group to be called "Pennsylvanians for Modern Democracy" for all elections.

Voters don't know who they are voting for and elections are too expensive, so let's have the state and the country run by an elite group of the "merit- selected." *

Marina Angel is a professor at Temple University law school.