Litigation

Ex-Judge?s Skimming an Argument for Merit Selection?

By Peter Hardin

In the recent corruption trial of former Judge Mark Ciavarella, our friends at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts find fresh  reasons to argue for getting judges “out of the fundraising business” by adopting merit selection.

In a commentary entitled “Where Did That Campaign Money Go?” Shira Goodman, the group’s associate director, seizes on testimony by Ciavarella at his trial that he skimmed from retention election campaign proceeds.

According to a Philadelphia Inquirer account of the trial, Ciavarella testified that “he had kept up to $20,000 in cash raised in 2005 when he was running for retention as a judge, keeping the bills at home and dipping into this kitty when needed. It is illegal under state law to use campaign money for personal expenses.”

Ciavarella’s testimony “demonstrates the dangers inherent in the expensive judicial electoral system,” Goodman writes. She continues:

“Many judges claim that in strict compliance with the spirit of the rules, they don?t even read the lists of donors [to their campaign] and are unaware of who contributed to their campaign and in what amount. How is the public to believe this, especially in the face of evidence that a judge was able to keep and use campaign cash donations? And once this fallacy is removed, how is an already very skeptical public to believe that campaign contributions really have no impact on judicial decision-making?”

Goodman says the answer is replacing elections with merit-based selection of judges. You can learn more about these appointment-and-retention systems from Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic. Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts is a partner group of JAS.

Ciavarella was convicted of a dozen charges, and acquitted of 27 others, for accepting a kickback from the builder of children’s detention centers (see Gavel Grab).

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 21, 2011 (boomark / email).