Inquirer Editorial: Time to change the way top judges get their jobs

With its conviction of a member of the state's highest court on election campaign corruption charges, a Pittsburgh-area jury on Thursday, in effect, issued a parallel indictment of the way Pennsylvania voters pick their top judges.

The very zeal required to amass a campaign war chest and mount a statewide election effort to reach the high court led to the downfall of suspended Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, who now faces jail time, along with a sister who also stood trial for her role as a court aide.

Despite Melvin's denials, an Allegheny County jury found that, while serving on Superior Court, she campaigned illegally by using state-paid staff during two election bids. Melvin's aides - as well as state Senate staffers to a second sister, who is now serving a jail sentence for her role - were accused of improperly performing campaign duties.

The jurors reported they spent virtually no time considering an acquittal for Melvin and her codefendant sister, Janine Orie. That measure of Melvin's outrageous conduct makes it all the more urgent that she resign or be removed from the seven-member court as soon as possible.

At the same time, the most fitting legacy for this case would be one written in the form of an amendment to the state constitution, which, with voters' approval, would switch the state from partisan appellate-court elections to merit-based appointments.

Indeed, Melvin's misconduct stands as only the latest and most egregious example of the corrupting influence of forcing appellate candidates - often already sitting as lower-court judges - to amass campaign war chests and wage statewide political battles.

Donations invariably flow from lawyers or special interests likely to appear before the courts. Little wonder voters say the process creates the impression that justice in Pennsylvania is for sale.

Such public cynicism should be an affront to most elected judges, who conduct themselves properly and have been embarrassed by the Melvin scandal.

The answer, though, is to get behind reform groups such as Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts to build momentum for removing appellate judges from the partisan political arena.

A Senate proposal introduced recently should be the vehicle for that reform. Once approved by state lawmakers during two legislative sessions, voters would then have their say on the issue.

It would go a long way toward restoring public confidence in the state's judiciary to seat future Supreme Court justices only by merit-based appointment.