Supreme Court race is a game of 'Pick 3'

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS are like chloroform: colorless and capable of rendering one unconscious.

That we hold them statewide is an affront to common sense.

Nobody knows the candidates. Their campaigns are funded by those seeking favor with the court. And qualifications to serve are almost immaterial.

But that Pennsylvania is one of just six states holding partisan elections of state judges is no surprise. We are, after all, the Land of Low Expectations.

Take our Supreme Court - please.

It's known for dragging its feet on Luzerne County's "kids for cash" abomination, for having one justice (Pittsburgh Republican Joan Orie Melvin) convicted of corruption for campaign abuses, and another (Philly Democrat Seamus McCaffery) resigning in the wake of a porn scandal.

It's malfeasance across the map.

Current candidates stress "integrity," a necessary talking point, given what's gone before; and "collegiality," another attribute the court's known for lacking.

Former Chief Justice Ron Castille and McCaffery came close to dueling pistols, not a new phenomenon. In the '90s, one justice accused another of trying to run him down in a Mercedes outside Philly's Four Seasons Hotel.

Now voters knowing nothing about six Republican and six Democratic candidates are to select three from each party May 19 to run in the fall to fill three vacancies.

This is like playing the Pennsylvania Lottery game "Pick 3."

And the range? One Democrat, Allegheny County Judge Dwayne Woodruff, is a former Pittsburgh Steelers cornerback. One Republican, Adams County Judge Michael George, got $500,000 from the founder of Boyds Bears.

Terrible Towels in the courtroom? Undue influence from the stuffed-toy lobby?

First you have to get elected. And these elections tend to ride on ballot position, gender and geography.

Ballot position's the luck of the draw. Top spots improve chances in crowded fields. Gender's a factor; Orie Melvin notwithstanding, voters like women on the bench. And geography (home county appears on the ballot) can result in regional receptivity or, in the case of Philadelphia outside Philadelphia, revulsion.

Money's key. Special interests, unions, lawyers - especially the trial bar - stuff campaign coffers. Why wouldn't they? With no limits on giving, what lawyer or law firm wouldn't want to be a friend of the court hearing their cases?

It's a system seemingly designed to discourage public trust. When it delivers good judges, it does so in spite of itself.

Who's out there?

The top ballot spot for Democrats is held by Superior Court Judge David Wecht. He's a former Allegheny County judge, son of nationally known forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that he raised more money from lawyers and law firms than any other candidate, $202,400.

The second ballot spot's held by Superior Court Judge Christine Donohue, of Allegheny County. She's a coal-miner's daughter from Shamokin.

Philly Common Pleas Judge Kevin Dougherty holds the third spot. He's a brother of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 chief "Johnny Doc" Dougherty and so far has raised more money than any candidate - $700,000-plus, more than half from unions.

Atop the GOP ballot is Justice Correale Stevens, of Luzerne County. He was on Superior Court but was appointed to fill Orie Melvin's unexpired term.

The next two GOP spots are held by the only candidates not recommended by the state bar's judicial-evaluation committee: Commonwealth Court Judge Anne Covey and Montour County District Attorney Rebecca Warren.

Others running: Democrats John Foradora, a Jefferson County judge, and Superior Court Judge Anne Lazarus, of Philadelphia; and Republican Superior Court Judges Cheryl Allen and Judy Olson, both of Allegheny County.

The shame here is that the seven-member court is powerful and important. It oversees all courts and judges, has final say on legislative redistricting and hears appeals on everything from voting rights to the death penalty.

No other elective office has so much influence with so little attention.

It insults candidates qualified for the bench but lacking political connections.

It's a system that ought to be changed to merit-appointment.

But that requires action and leadership - in a state in which efforts at change for the better are usually treated with chloroform.

Blog: ph.ly/BaerGrowls

Columns: ph.ly/JohnBaer