Rendell calls again for merit selection of judges

HARRISBURG - Gov. Rendell on Wednesday renewed his call to change the way state judges are chosen in Pennsylvania, citing the "explosion" of campaign spending and growing number of judicial scandals.

Rendell said the election of judges had led to the influence of big money in judicial races, which has "totally eroded public confidence in the judicial system."

The governor and others have advocated the merit selection of judges for the Commonwealth, Superior and Supreme Courts. Under such a plan, a 14-member nonpartisan panel would pick the 31 judges for those courts.

Rendell's plea for the General Assembly to pass merit-selection legislation this year comes amid a growing number of scandals involving judges and the judicial system.

Advocates say the developments should help propel legislation that has been introduced and died in every session for more than two decades.

Merit selection would require a constitutional amendment, under which a bill must pass both chambers for two consecutive sessions and then be approved by voters in a referendum. But the prospects appear to be rocky in both chambers, where leaders either have expressed outright opposition or are noncommittal.

As proposed in House and Senate bills, the merit-selection panel would consist of four appointees by the governor and four by the legislature. The six others would be "public" members, with one a law school dean and the five others from categories such as labor, business, civic, and public safety.

Twenty-nine states use merit selection to choose judges. Pennsylvania is one of only six that elect all judges on all levels.

Rendell, who has been lobbying for merit selection for two decades, said the panel would remove the influence of money, which, he said, has tainted judicial races and cast a pall over the judiciary - and in the most recent case the legislature.

Merit-selection legislation has been stuck in the Senate and House since last spring.

But Rendell said he was hopeful that a "confluence of events," including the recent indictment of State Sen. Jane Orie (R., Allegheny), would spur lawmakers to action.

Orie, a former Senate majority whip, was charged with theft and other offenses for using state resources to help the campaign of her sister, Joan Orie Melvin, for the Supreme Court in 2009.

Melvin won what was the most expensive judicial race in state history, one in which she and her Democratic opponent spent $3.2 million.

Rendell stressed that while Orie has not been convicted of any wrongdoing, her sister would not have needed to generate a large campaign chest had merit selection been in place.

Other factors that might help bring the merit-selection bills to a vote this year, Rendell said, are the Luzerne County "kids-for-cash" scandal that led to federal charges against two county judges, and The Inquirer's recent series on Philadelphia court system.

At least one top Senate leader does not support merit selection, and House leadership positions were unclear.

Erik Arneson, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R., Delaware), said Pileggi did not believe the state should take away the right of the people to elect their judges.

Brett Marcy, spokesman for House Majority Leader Todd Eachus (D., Carbon), said merit selection would be included among a number of reform measures under consideration in the House and "deserves thorough discussion."

But when asked where Eachus stood on the bill, he said the majority leader would "listen to caucus and listen to what the caucus has to say."

Some critics fear members of the selection panel might themselves be subject to a politicized appointment process.

Several sitting judges, including Supreme Court Justice Seamus P. McCaffrey of Philadelphia, have said they favor the continued election of judges and believe their personalities lend themselves to being more "electable" than "appointable."

McCaffrey has called merit selection "elitist."

But Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, which has long advocated merit selection, said that "Pennsylvanians are focused on the courts like never before, and there is a growing sentiment that we are not using a selection system designed to get the most qualified, fair, and independent judges on the appellate courts."

A recent study by the American Judicature Society found that 60 percent of cases before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court involved a lawyer, law firm, or party that contributed to a sitting justice's election campaign.

Rendell said there was "no excuse" for not moving the legislation this year and putting the question on the ballot by late 2011.