Change urged
There were 18 candidates in the state’s judicial primary elections this past Tuesday. However, voters would be hard pressed to name any of them other than former Pittsburgh Steelers Dwayne Woodruff, who won the Democratic nomination for the state Supreme Court.
There’s a good reason, though, for their anonymity. Because of judicial canons, candidates are forbidden from giving their views on specific issues that might come up before them if elected, such as the death penalty and abortion.
They all mouth the same cliches such as being tough but fair and being honest and independent. They also tout their families and promote themselves as good, hard-working people.
But voters are left with little real information to judge judicial candidates. Geography plays a key role with residents from western Pennsylvanian much more likely to vote for a candidate from Allegheny County than, say, Philadelphia. It’s probably the opposite in the eastern part of the state. Gender and ethnicity are also important factors in voters choosing judicial candidates.
Qualifications and solid resumes go out the window, making the entire process questionable.
Another problem is that by forcing judicial candidates to enter the political arena, they need to raise millions of dollars for statewide campaigns. Often times such money comes from special interest groups and attorneys whose cases might end up before the court.
In addition, campaign finance laws have been relaxed allowing advocacy groups to spend unlimited amounts of money for political advertising, mostly in the form of searing, negative ads.
Judicial candidates also need to get the approval of political operatives whose support might mean the difference between victory and defeat. It’s all an unseemly process for selecting serious judges who shouldn’t have to worry about raising money and campaigning.
It’s important to note that Pennsylvania is one of only seven states which holds partisan elections for state Supreme Court judge and one of only six that hold partisan elections for other appellate court judges.
The rest of the states use a process called merit selection. A bill introduced by Rep. Bryan Cutler, R-Lancaster County, and Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Montgomery County, calls for just that. Their bill would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to have appellate court judges be appointed by the governor and confirmed by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
Selections would be made from a list of candidates picked by an appellate court nominating commission made up of members appointed by the governor, as well as members of the majority and minority parties in both the House of Representatives and Senate.
The change would affect the state Supreme Court, Superior Court and Commonwealth Court, but not county judges or magisterial district judges.
It’s hard to say if the bill has any chance of being passed. The issue of merit selection has been around for many years. In the past Gov. Tom Wolf, along with former governors Ed Rendell, Dick Thornburgh, Tom Ridge, Mark Schweiker and Tom Corbett have all advocated making the switch.
The process of amending the state’s constitution is long and hard. Such legislation must be passed in two consecutive sessions and then approved by voters in a statewide referendum.
But it can be done. With Tuesday’s flawed judicial elections still fresh in the minds of lawmakers, let’s hope they start the switch to a merit selection system as soon as possible.