PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
Mobile
Home Delivery
philly.com
email
font size
comments
5
options
 
Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Rendell pushes for merit selection of judges

Yesterday, the State House held hearings on an old idea: ending the practice of electing judges in Pennsylvania. The bill, which is sponsored by State Rep. Matthew Smith, has gained new support in recent months thanks an expensive election to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and the “cash for kids” scandal in Luzerne County.

The bill has a strong supporter in Gov. Ed Rendell. He sent a letter yesterday expressing his support and calling on the General Assembly to take action.

I have said on many occasions that our system of electing appellate judges makes no sense. It is no secret that there is great concern in Pennsylvania about the role of money in judicial elections. Current law could allow judicial candidates to accept indirect contributions from lawyers and special interest groups that may eventually have to argue a case before that judicial candidate. It is no wonder that Pennsylvanians have been losing faith in our courts and our judges.

Establishing a merit selection system would squarely remove the influence of money in our judicial elections and ensure fairness in the judicial system. That is because merit selection will help ensure the most qualified individuals of all backgrounds from all parts of Pennsylvania -- even those without political connections -- get appointed to our appellate courts.

Strong words -- but from a lame duck governor. Here are the details of the bill, from a story in today's Philadelphia Inquirer.

The merit-selection proposal would apply to Commonwealth and Superior Courts, the intermediate appellate courts, and to the Supreme Court. Common Pleas Court judges, elected on a county level, are not included in the legislation.

Under the legislation, the governor would select an individual recommended by a 14-member commission: four gubernatorial appointees, four General Assembly appointees, and six public representatives from business, unions, civic groups and law schools. The nominee would face Senate confirmation.

Does this proposal go far enough to remove the taint of money from the judicial process? Or does it make sense for judges to have to face the voters?

Review city services on our sister site, City Howl.
Posted by Ben Waxman @ 3:22 PM  Permalink | 5 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:11 PM, 12/08/2009
    If Rendell can pull of this important reform, his legacy is secure. That's how important merit judges is to the quality of the judiciary in this state. We'll have to name streets after him in Philly.
    — CleanupPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:33 PM, 12/08/2009
    What took so long?
    — shnuggleshnee
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:00 PM, 12/08/2009
    Rendell speaking out against the influence of special interest money...is like Chris Rock saying you shouldn't use profanity to get laughs. The second layer of irony is Rendell himself will then be able pack the courts with judges who'll support his own political agenda and his own political cronies.
    — rbpeeple
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:56 PM, 12/08/2009
    "Merit selection" by whom and based upon what criteria exactly? The devil's in the details and those are seriously lacking. The idea of a 14 member commission selected by the governor and the assembly with six "public" representatives is hardly inspiring. Electing them isn't ideal but as to "merit selection" I'd caution you may want to be careful what you wish for because you may well get it and find it not exactly what you imagined. The cure here may well be worse than the illness. And why is it exactly that the Common Pleas Judges are excluded??? The Luzerne scum were Common Pleas Judges. The vast majority of civil and criminal cases never go to the appellate courts covered by the proposed "merit selection." The influence of money in the system is more acute in the trial courts - the Common Pleas. So why again is the proposed change excluding the common pleas court?
    — Tkat
  • Comment removed.


5 comments
About It's Our Money
Every year, city government spends slightly more than $4 billion. Where does all that money come from? More importantly, where does it go? Are we getting the most bang for our tax buck? “It's Our Money” is a joint project between Philadelphia Daily News and WHYY, funded by the William Penn Foundation, designed to answer these questions.




MONEY AND JUSTICE DON'T MIX

City Hall

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.


ILLEGALLY PARKED TRUCK? CITY PASSES THE BUCK

City Howl

Randy Malone has a backhoe problem.


WILL THE NEW COUNCIL GIVE YOU A SAY?

 podcast

On this week's It's Our Money podcast, we talk with Zack Stalberg, president of government watchdog Committee of Seventy, about public comment in Council.

It's Our Money contributors

Tips? Comments? Questions?
Contact:

Doron Taussig:
215-854-5307
doron.taussig@gmail.com
@dorontaussig

Holly Otterbein:
215-854-5809
hm.otterbein@gmail.com
@hollyotterbein

Juliana Reyes:
215-854-5855
juliana.f.reyes@gmail.com
@juliana_f_reyes

Follow on Twitter

Advertise Here