The Philadelphia Inquirer  called for judicial selection reform, arguing that “The case for reforming the way Pennsylvania selects its judges keeps getting stronger.”  Citing PMC’s analysis of the fundraising and spending in the 2009 Supreme Court election, the editorial focuses on the poisonous role of money in judicial elections:

"It’s the troubling influence of campaign fund-raising that continues to create the most concern about electing judges in head-to-head partisan contests.
Most Pennsylvanians say they suspect that justice is for sale because candidates for judgeships have to raise campaign funds. The big-spending 2009 Supreme Court election between Republican Joan Orie Melvin and Democrat Jack Panella did nothing to restore their fraying faith in an impartial judiciary."

The Inquirer urges action, and we hope the call is heeded:

"The course for state policymakers is clear: Step in and reform judicial selection, or continue to preside over a system that erodes public confidence in justice as it’s dispensed in Pennsylvania."

Meanwhile, an editorial in thePhiladelphia Daily News urges that Merit Selection is a much needed reform.  Discussing the very expensive 2009 Supreme Court elections and the Luzerne County Courthouse scandal,  the Daily News writes:

"Welcome to the darker side of the Pennsylvania judiciary, a side that will continue to stay dark as long as we elect judges. . . ."

The editorial discusses the danger of fundraising in judicial campaigns, the too important role of the political parties in determining who reaches the bench, and the lack of relevant information for voters trying to decide who should be a judge.
The editorial closes with a shout-out to PMC:

"The need for reform is clear. The advocacy group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts has been a steady voice calling for merit selection through a constitutional amendment."