With major government reform the flavor of the week in Washington, thanks to the Wall Street meltdown, Harrisburg lawmakers were right in step as they moved toward changing the way Pennsylvania selects its highest judges.
The state Senate Judiciary Committee provided an important forum Tuesday, staging a hearing on proposals that would switch to merit-based appointment for the state's three appellate courts.
With her legislation, Sen. Jane M. Earll (R., Erie) hopes to eliminate the perception that justice is for sale at the highest levels. That unfortunate impression persists - as voters tell pollsters - because of lavish spending on judicial elections.
Last year, nearly $8 million in campaign donations was spent on the two races for seats on the state Supreme Court. Much of that money came from the legal community, raising the specter of ethical conflicts.
As Gov. Rendell noted Wednesday in repeating his support for Earll's reform, "Our system of electing appellate judges makes no sense at all. . . . Our judicial candidates are forced to accept indirect contributions from lawyers and special-interest groups that know they will, one day, have to argue a case before that judicial candidate."
Under a merit-based appointment system, a nominating panel would screen candidates for their legal expertise and judicial temperament, as well as the need for diversity on the bench. The panel - itself constituted with broad-based representation - would forward names to the governor, whose selections would have to be approved by the Senate.
Opponents of the merit-based appointment system argue that it disenfranchises voters. But the hybrid approach proposed for Pennsylvania would give voters their say.
Once appointed, Supreme Court justices - and judges on the Commonwealth and Superior Courts - all would have to pass muster with voters after an initial period on the bench. To continue in office, these judges would have to win a yes/no retention election.
With its emphasis on diversity as well as legal qualifications for nominees, Earll's proposal would enhance the likelihood that the appellate bench represents a cross-section of the state. As in states with appointed benches now, more minorities and women would wear robes.
Of course, the switch to an appointed system requires voter approval through a constitutional amendment, once the General Assembly approves a plan over two legislative sessions. "So part of our pitch is: Let people vote," says Lynn A. Marks of the Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts reform group. Indeed, how can critics of merit selection deny voters their input?
What citizens already have decided about judicial elections is that they're confusing at best, with legal qualifications playing a minimal role in who wins. At their worst, judicial elections are tainted by what Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille calls the "corrosive effect of money." An appointed judiciary with voter oversight is the remedy.