Special interests trumped voters on choosing judges

The special-interest groups that derailed reform of statewide judicial elections, which most Pennsylvanians say they distrust, claimed that they were fighting to preserve citizens' right to vote.

Yet, the trial lawyers, unions, gun-rights advocates, and abortion foes who continue to oppose reforms that would take appellate-court judges out of partisan elections achieved their victory by denying voters the very chance to air their views.

Legislation tabled last week by a razor-thin margin in a state House committee would provide for appointing top judges to an initial term, followed by a retention election.

But the governor's appointment of judges from a nominating panel's list, followed by Senate confirmation, wouldn't happen unless voters approved a constitutional amendment — a multiyear effort.

Contrast that open and democratic proposal with what happened as special-interest groups lobbied lawmakers with the apparent view that elections are the surest way to pick jurists favorable to them.

Rather than trust the voters, groups such as the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation made lawmakers squirm by making the issue a litmus test. With the trial lawyers and National Rifle Association adding their powerful voices to the opposition, a legislature that needs little excuse to shy from bold action on any front simply buckled.

Voters should be furious with such legislative bullying, given that the statewide reform group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts says more than nine out of 10 state residents want the chance to vote on the issue. As PMC and other supporters of merit selection — including the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, and Philadelphia Bar Association — realize, judicial elections undermine public trust in the courts because candidates raise money from lawyers and other interest groups that may appear before them.

On top of that, the legal drama playing out in Allegheny County, with the indictment of state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin on charges she misused taxpayer-funded staff to get elected, should be Exhibit No. 1 for merit-selection reform.

How anyone could defend a system of picking judges that produces corruption of the type alleged against Melvin is a mystery. Even more troubling is the fact that powerful forces in the state don't even want to let voters make up their own minds on this critical court reform.