An IOM editorial:
IMAGINE you're appearing in court, about a matter that's very important to you. You've never seen the judge before. But the attorney for the opposition has given his Honor thousands of dollars in campaign donations, which helped the judge become a judge in the first place.
How confident would you feel that justice would be served?
In Pennsylvania, you can't. Since the commonwealth still elects judges in partisan elections, that means people who want to be judges have to raise campaign money - though that's not the only problem with the system.
The laws governing when a judge recuses him or herself are weak and vague, and require only that judges recuse themselves when their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," according to the state's code of judicial conduct.
Of course, many judges don't like to think their impartiality should be questioned, and get offended at the suggestion. And since judges aren't required to recuse themselves from a case involving a campaign contributor, we can't be sure that justice will always be served.
This is yet another reminder that the state ought to switch to a merit-selection system that at least somewhat insulates judicial selection from politics, as soon as possible.
The recent cases involving Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, who is a target in a grand jury investigation involving use of state workers in political campaigns, and Judge Charles Hayden, who recently threw out evidence against state Rep. Cherelle Parker, his Facebook friend, suggest that " as soon as possible" isn't soon enough.
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on merit selection next month, and Gov. Corbett supports the idea. But even if merit selection gathers momentum, it will require a constitutional amendment, which will likely take years to accomplish.
Meanwhile, Harrisburg's immediate action should be strengthening the recusal rules.
Tennessee recently introduced a rule prohibiting judges from hearing a case if campaign spending by lawyers or litigants might cause the judges' impartiality to reasonably be questioned, and goes further by requiring judges who decline a recusal request to provide a written explanation. The state also allows litigants to appeal the decision, taking it out of the hands of the judge in question. (In Pennsylvania, judges' decisions not to recuse can be overturned on appeal; this was the case with Judge Hayden. But it doesn't happen often.)
According to a poll by the national advocacy group Justice at Stake, 76 percent of Americans believe that campaign contributions can affect a judge's courtroom decisions. That's a problem: Americans need a justice system in which we can have faith.
Pennsylvania should do what it can to bolster our confidence. (For more on merit selection: www.pmconline.org)
Follow us on Twitter and review city services on our sister site, City Howl.
- Philly Clout
- Metropolis
- Attytood
- Heard in the Hall
- Commonwealth Confidential
- Philebrity
- Phawker
- Young Philly Politics
- OurPhiladelphia
- Capitol Ideas
- Grassroots PA
- PA Policy Blog
- Media Mobilizing Project
- The Notebook
- Dave Davies Off Mic
- Committee of Seventy
- The Independent
- Naked City
- Plan Philly
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008

















