According to yesterday’s Legal Intelligencer (subscription required), a new (and revised) study put out by the American Judicature Society has added fuel to the on-going debate in Pennsylvania over judicial elections. PMC released the results of the study in a press release last week, revealing the high frequency by which donors to Pennsylvania Supreme Court election campaigns later appear before the elected justices in court. In civil cases more than half of the litigants, lawyers or law firms had contributed to at least one of the justices’ campaigns and in many instances had contributed to the campaigns of more than one justice.
While the study did not attempt to prove that donations influenced a judge’s decision, Malia Reddick, the author of the study pointed out that “it does suggest that citizens and litigants may have reason to question the fairness and impartiality of the court’s decisions…”
Shira Goodman, deputy director of PMC expressed similar sentiments:
I think it gives you pause. How would you feel if you go to court and know someone on the other side donated to one of the justices? I might be concerned about that. We have a very small, kind of insular bar here. When you add the money in, it just doesn’t look good.
The study confirms what many in Pennsylvania already know. In fact, many state lawmakers and reform groups have already been working to get rid of judicial elections in favor of a merit selection process for appellate court judges. Governor Rendell included the issue in a list of reforms he intends to pursue during his last year in office. Legislation to effect such a change is currently pending in Harrisburg.
One of the sponsors of the bill, state Senator Jane Earll (R-Erie), says she is optimistic about the fate of the legislation. She noted that “every time I introduce the bill, it gets a little bit more support.”
Goodman asserts that it is more than just the possibility of unfair play that is at issue; even if the reality is benign, the fact that political contributions are made can raise suspicion.
You shouldn’t have to worry. You don’t have to worry about that in states where judges aren’t elected. You don’t have to worry about that in federal courts. It’s just not even a consideration. Here, it is.
