This misses the point.

As it is now, the bench is in reality the most highly politicised position in the Commonwealth of PA.

Courting special interests, using insider connections and deal-making are how judges get elected in the Keystone State.

In SE Pa I can not think of one judge who did not get elected this way, and they are all without exception, liberal.

If good judges are found in our state judiciary it is not because of the electoral process, but in spite of it.

Another observation. Contrast the comportment and demeanor of state court judges with their federal counter-parts. On the whole, if you practice in front of them enough, you will see that by far, the state court judges are more comtemptuous, arbitrary and disdainful than the federal judges. You would think that being elected rather than appointed would produce the opposite result, but it does not.

In any event, I would much prefer a merit selection process in which candidates are screened by elected legislators, and must be confirmed at public hearings. In that context, as long as the elected officials stand their ground on confirmation, the democratic process would be best protected.

I am not suggesting that appointment and confirmation is perfect. It is not; look at the rejection of highly qualified legal minds like Bork, and the easy acceptance of light-weight “diversity” candidates like Sotomayor.

But I believe appointment and confirmation is a less flawed way of selecting our judges then the process we now have.

Not surprisingly, Vet & I arrive in at the same place from different directions.

The political election of judges opens the door for hacks, party operatives and less-qualified judges to ascend the ladder because of who they know and whose ass they kissed, rather than how well they know the law.

Case in point: the 2007 Supreme Court election that saw Seamus McCaffery endorsed and nominated by the Democrats, even though he was a lower-rated candidate than the highly regarded C. Darnel Jones, who was shafted by the party statewide, and then again during the county endorsement process. This process gets tied up with demographics and money and politics, and it results in a bench of judges who are less astute and more political than we deserve.

My only quibble with the proposed change: let’s have a nonpartisan panel of the State Bar Association send a list of, say, the five most-qualified candidates to a nominating Board. This Board should be made up equally of Democrats and Republicans, with the Lt. Gov. as the deciding vote, and they should be required to choose their nominee(s) from the submitted Bar Association list.

Bruce and Vet,

While we’re at it, why don’t we just leave the selection of a Governor up to a blue-ribbon, “bipartisan” panel of “experts” to decide who will serve in that capacity?

Electing judges is the only way that We, the People can circumvent the politicians and have some say over who occupies the judicial branch.

Not to offend any lawyers here (some of my best friends are lawyers), but I would sooner allow the Govenror to have sole appointment authority over all judges around the state than to give the Bar Association any additional control over the process. If anything, further influence by the Bar represents a heck of a good reason to keep the status quo.

Since their ratings mean close to nothing, the voters can choose to ignore the Bar and cast votes for who they believe to be the best candidates. By putting more power in the hands of the Bar the system will be much more political and much more closed to the people. Same goes with any sort of wacky “merit” system.

Since 70% of the public in PA (if not more) wants to continue to have their say in this process, I think the Governors should side with the people and support the election of judges.

NRS

No…
Panels, Commissions, Governor, hearings, and certainly not the ABA. (As I recall in a recent the ABA gave a rating of ‘not qualified’ based soley on the person seeking office refusing to answer their questionaire (it was a very affirmative refusal)). I don’t like that small-minded bunch having as much say as they do now.
If you have to have any sort of panel… how about this?…Pick 12-24 folks State-wide from juror roles in a lottery system, pay them well, and let them evalutate candidates for nomination (or not). I’d trust that a heck of a lot more some ‘merit’ system.

NRS:

What you perhaps don’t realize is this; the Bar Associations have an absolute stranglehold over the judical elections with the status quo.

Look at any county, and see how the bar associations do the vetting and screening, and then act as a surrogate for the Party (Dem or Repub, situationally dependant) in recommending an endorsement. Then the party follows through and the candidate is annointed.

A lot of it is through back-channels, but everyone knows that is how it is done.

In fact the judical elections are far more “pay-to-play” than the other elections, because they are so low-profile typically, and the press (and the electorate) really doesn’t scrutinize the candidates.

Go into Court in filthydelphia any day of the week, both criminal and civil, and see the glorious fruits of our electoral system for judges. Or go into any other County to see the same on a smaller scale.

Its not pretty.

Bar Associations are political, period. They are also liberal, and they are a self-protecting class. And under this system, they reign supreme.

Bailey:

2nd paragraph, Exactly.

The current governor and former governors must really think we are too stupid to understand. Some nerve these individuals have. The ENTIRE POLITICAL SYSTEM in Pa. is corrupt. Elections or merit selection, either way we the taxpayer are screwed over. There’s no government for THE PEOPLE in this state, only insiders or those that can raise enough money. Everyone else is out of the game. The only solution is to move out of state if one can afford it or find decent employment elsewhere. Pa. politics is a cesspool of cronyism, insider deals and the like. Terrible, terrible state politics.

I frequently go back and forth in my mind over merit selection or election of judges. Overall I have a higher respect for federal judges than I do for PA judges.

Of course that also clashes with some of the merit selection proposed ideas in PA because I think the whole idea of the state bar and an “independent panel” (I always laugh about independent panels … they are appointed by someone political and really are rarely independent) is ridiculous. If it was something simple and straightforward like the feds where the executive nominates and senate publicly vets, I would be more inclined.

But then there is the other side of the coin … I really don’t trust many people in Harrisburg to make good decisions. If the last 8 years are any indicator, merit selection would be a hot mess too (that goes for executive and legislative).

So, in a nutshell, since there is no significant weight for either option, I defer to Winston Churchill, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

So, in that regards, I do support Nathan’s ideas about having judges with no political (no region?) markings and allow non-major party voters to select as well. On that note, I would also say eliminate primaries for judges. Save campaign costs by letting it all be sorted out in a General election.

The governors are simply trying to gather even more clout and favor of the insiders. Elect judges, period. Bar recommendations are worthless. I remain a great supporter of Governor Rendell, but his successor may not be as worthy of the people’s trust as he. I know most of you Republican Tea Baggers want Rendell hung, but he has made PA better in a difficult period. If Corbett was to win, there is no way that he would fairly nominate qualified judges–just ultra-conservative hacks. One of you esteemed commentators called Bork “qualified”–insane is a closer adjective. At least the public can sort through the total nutcases and pick the hack of their choice. I agree with Nathan, elect–do not select.

This op-ed presents an ignorant point of view. The Pennsylvania judiciary is a disgrace, precisely because of partisan elections and the influence of political contributions. Those who founded this country recognized in Article III of the U.S. Constitution that we needed an independent judiciary, i.e. one that was free of political influence. That is because judges are supposed to be neutral, non-political, non-partisan decision-makers who decide cases solely based upon the law and the evidence, not according to popular will. The current system in Pennsylvania degrades quality, makes judges act in a political manner, and puts Pennsylvania in a position that is hard to compete for new businesses, that do take the quality of a state’s judicial system into account. The notion of a judiciary selected by a partisan election process makes Pennsylvania a laughing stock, and rightly so.

While the PA judiciary IS a disgrace, an appointed court could be even more of a disgrace.

There are ways to depoliticize and improve the courts without going to the extreme of an appointive system. The election of judges maintains respect for the fact that We the People, not politicians, are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means.

The plan currently put forward would only serve to give the PBA full control over who sits on the courts while excusing its members from making campaign contributions. Nothing more than a discount program for lawyers under the color of law. With lawyers leading the charge? I’m shocked, SHOCKED!!! (/sarc)

“Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts?” Gee whiz, that sounds awfully familiar. It’s the same sort of organization that brought us the constitutional revision movement of the 1960’s: “A Modern Constitution for Pennsylvania, Inc.,” a front group for the PBA.

AKA Lawyers & Politicans, Inc.: the very same folks who gave us a full time legislature, an explosion of the ABCs of government, and a court that rules 180 degrees opposite of what the Constitution says.

No thanks. No way. No how. Not on my watch.

You can’t make your case for or against election of judges based upon abstract “WE THE PEOPLE” ideas and rhetoric, you need to see it and experience it.

The judiciary in PA is filled to the brim with unqualified, unaccountable poltical hacks.

Who funds the wannabee judges’ campaigns?

Answer: LAWYERS, the same lawyers who come before the judges after they are elected.

Sure looks like a monumental conflict of interest to me.

And judges do not run for re-election, they run for retention – meaning, they have no opponent at the end of their terms. Its essentially like encumbancy on steroids.

As to the Churchilian response: appointment and confirmation is still consistent with democracy, and, we are a constitutional REPUBLIC not a pure referendum-driven democracy.

Regarding the details of the Governors’ proposed plan, I have not looked into it. I suspect if I had, I would probably find that it sucks.

Mr. Shrader, I take issue with your premise. Special interests, not the people, decide judicial elections. The present system of electing judges is ethically suspect.

One need look no further than next door for proof. When the West Virginia Supreme Court looked likely to rule against Massey Energy (the company of the recent coal mine explosion) for hundreds of millions, company owner Don Blankenship simply spent $50 million to defeat an unfavorable judge in the next election.

Sure, he lost by a popular vote of the people, but only because the campaign against him – the largest in WV history – was bankrolled by special interests.

Judicial candidates have to raise money in order to campaign – from special interests like big business, labor unions and lawyers groups. Why would such groups continue to contribute to campaigns unless they were receiving some sort of benefit? How can any judge claim to be impartial after soliciting campaign contributions special interests?

Either put these elections on public financing, or go to appointment by a non-partisan board.

[...] Shrader of pa2010.com summarizes Pennsylvania voter attitudes regarding the effort in that state to, in Shrader’s words, [...]

There is another point that is missed. Election of Judges has brought more diversity to the bench. Look at white-male dominated partner rolls at big firms, and then look at the ample representation of women & minorities on the Common Pleas Bench in Philadelphia. Without the election process, most of those women & minorities would not be there, since there are few such members in the “big law” club.

Compare that to the roster of partners at most large law firms, which is mostly an “old boys” kind of thing, appointed, not elected.

A “blue ribbon” appointment process will cause the judiciary to look less and less like the people who come before it, and there will also be a resultant bias towards big firms, big institutions, and yes, big government.

To paraphrase Churchill, “elections may be messy, but they beat all other alternatives”.