Litigation

PA Poll: Strong Support for Merit Selection

By Peter Hardin

A solid majority of Pennsylvanians–62 percent–favors replacing contested elections for appellate judges with merit selection, according to a poll conducted for Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a partner of the Justice at Stake Campaign.

In discussing their views, 73 percent told pollsters they do not think the most qualified candidates currently win elections for the bench, and 76 percent believe campaign contributions influence judges’ decisions, according to a PMC press release.

Moreover, an overwhelming majority–93 percent–say they want the opportunity to vote on whether Pennsylvania should change the way it picks appellate court judges.

Justice at Stake was among sponsors of the poll, which was released at a news conference that included participation by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and former governors Tom Ridge, Richard Thornburgh and Mark Schweiker, according to the blog of Judges on Merit, sponsored by PMC.

?During the last decade, high court candidates around the country raised more than $206 million, much of it from parties who appear before them in court,? said Bert Brandenberg, JAS executive director.  ?Merit selection is moving forward in Pennsylvania and around the country because Americans want judges to be accountable to the law, not campaign supporters.?

In a written statement, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, ?Right now, Pennsylvanians are being shortchanged by the way their judges are chosen.  Judges running for election have to raise campaign contributions from individuals and organizations that appear before them in court.

“In fact, the average cost to run for a state Supreme Court seat is staggering ? reaching into the millions of dollars.  I applaud Pennsylvania?s current effort to change its system to protect the impartiality of the judiciary without sacrificing accountability to the voters.?

Rendell said,  “There are many reasons why Pennsylvania needs to make this change, and the bottom line is that if we embrace merit selection, we will get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges to serve our residents.”

Added Lynn A. Marks, executive director of PMC, ?The fact that 93 percent of Pennsylvanians want the chance to decide the best way to select our state?s appellate court judges is a resounding call for the legislature to take the first steps to bring this issue to the people.”

Rendell recently cited numerous reasons for switching to a merit selection system, including criminal charges lodged against state Sen. Jane Orie in connection with last year’s state Supreme Court race, and the rapid growth in spending to elect appellate judges. In the 2000-09 decade, Pennsylvania had the second highest spending nationally on state Supreme Court elections.

Orie and a sister, Janine Orie, were charged with using public resources to help elect another sister, Justice Joan Orie Melvin (see Gavel Grab).

In the poll, voters were asked about a proposed merit selection method in which a citizens nominating commission would recommend a slate of qualified candidates to the governor. Judges appointed by the governor would require periodic consent from voters to remain on the bench.

The poll’s release was the subject of news articles by the Associated Press and the Capitol Ideas blog of The Morning Call.

Other poll sponsors were the American Judicature Society, the Committee for Economic Development, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 09, 2010 (boomark / email).