Opening argument

Word that a flock of candidates has already gathered to replenish the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ranks might remind wary judiciary observers of watching Sisyphus' boulder make its mournful return to the bottom of the hill. Having lost two justices to scandal in as many years, the court is poised to regenerate through the same benighted political process that yielded the last crop.

The Inquirer reported last week that "at least 16 prospects" plan to file for election to one of three high court vacancies - two openings linked to justices who were unceremoniously relieved of their robes amid scandal, Joan Orie Melvin and Seamus McCaffery, and a third left by Chief Justice Ronald Castille's retirement from a tumultuous tenure. Those hoping to succeed them look to be the usual mix of accomplished jurists and machine-made hacks. And the winners will be determined by the usual combination of party support and low-interest voting.

More auspiciously, the vacancies present an opportunity for Gov.-elect Tom Wolf to push the state toward a better means of choosing judges. Wolf, who is to be inaugurated on Tuesday, has the power to nominate justices for state Senate confirmation to fill two of the vacancies through the fall elections, as well as other current and future appellate court vacancies. (Melvin was replaced by Gov. Corbett in 2013.) In doing so, he should employ the kind of merit-selection process that the legislature should have approved for all statewide judicial posts long ago.

Lynn Marks of the reform group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts sensibly suggests that the governor assemble a bipartisan nominating commission to produce a short list of potential nominees. Ideally, the commission would be rich in legal and judicial expertise. And as Marks noted, it should aim to select candidates based on integrity, intellect, experience, and temperament.

If well executed, such a process could suggest fine candidates for election to full terms on the high court and others. Moreover, it could serve as a model and motive for the legislature to replace judicial elections with an appointment process that would more consistently produce competent, impartial, ethical judges.

With the governor's office on the brink of a stark change of parties and ideologies, it's worth noting that dispensing with judicial elections is one of the few issues on which the outgoing and incoming governors agree. This is Wolf's moment to begin to make it so.