Gavel Grab

 Justice at Stake has submitted written testimony to a Pennsylvania legislative committee studying a proposal to adopt merit selection appointment of appellate judges.

The testimony, which can be read here, was sent to a House Judiciary subcommittee that is holding a hearing Dec. 7 on the merit selection plan. The plan is backed by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, which has more at its Judges on Merit blog.

Pennsylvania has witnessed a dramatic increase in Supreme Court election spending in recent years. From 1999-2008,  Pennsylvania ranked 5th in the nation for Supreme Court fundraising with a total of about $16 million. Pennsylvania’s 2007 Supreme Court election, which cost $10.5 million in candidate  fundraising and independent TV ads, was the nation’s most expensive in the 2007-08 election cycle.

According to the JAS testimony, Justice at Stake does not support any single selection method for judges in all states, but collaborates with partners on reform measures that include merit selection in order to curtail special interests in judicial races. The document describes merit selection as “one of several strategies gaining consideration to protect the integrity and reputation of state courts.”

 The 24 states using merit selection for Supreme Courts have significantly less campaign spending than the 21 states that select judges by competitive elections. Of the $200.4 million spent on Supreme Court elections throughout the nation from 1999-2008, 73%, or $148 million, was accounted for by the nine states with partisan judicial elections. (Pennsylvania is one of these nine states that selects judges by partisan elections.)

The document also noted that the issue of potential ethical conflicts was raised in the recent Supreme Court election, when  Joan Orie Melvin, who eventually won, said her opponent, Democrat Jack Panella, was compromised by large donations from a trial lawyers group.  “Is it pay-to-play? Is it justice for sale? I don’t know, but it sure sounds suspect.”

JAS testimony reports that the Pennsylvania decision to hold hearings about potential reforms has not only received acclaim from local publications, but also from some of the nation’s most notable papers. A USA Today editorial stated that one of the best measures to protect courts from special interests is merit selection. JAS quoted the editorial, saying:

“Every system has drawbacks. But nothing could be worse than putting ‘f’or sale’ signs on the doors of the nation’s courts.”

For more information on campaign financing, see the JAS Campaign Money Data page, or the page on Money and Elections. For other Gavel Grab posts on merit selection, click here.