The writer demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the effort to adopt merit selection for appellate judges.

First, he characterizes the reform as one that would affect all judges. In fact, proponents are seeking merit selection only for the three statewide appellate courts, not for any local trial courts.

Then he questions why these (or any) judges should be treated differently from other public officials. He doesn't understand what so many voters know:

Judges are different. Mayors, legislators and governors represent constituencies, make promises and accept campaign contributions with the understanding that they will pursue specific objectives if elected.

Judges can't make promises about how they'll decide cases. They are sworn to uphold the law in an even-handed manner without regard to personal belief, political pressure, popular will or the preferences of campaign donors.

How can we expect judges to campaign like other elected officials and then, when they take the bench, expect that the public will view them differently? No wonder this system breeds a lack of public confidence.

Justice is supposed to be blind, but polls show that people believe judges' eyes can be opened when millions of dollars in campaign contributions are involved. This perception harms our judges and weakens our courts, which depend on public trust to function.

Merit selection advocates are ready to let the people decide how to pick appellate-court judges. If the legislature approves the proposed constitutional amendment, it will be submitted to the electorate and will become law only if the people approve it. It is opponents of merit selection who want to prevent the people from deciding how they wish to select appellate judges.

Robert C. Heim, Chairman

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts

Robert Fiebach, Chairman

PMCAction