DN Editorial: Money & justice don't mix

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)