This has been a big year for advancing the cause of Merit Selection for Pennsylvania appellate court judges. Bills were introduced into the both houses of the state legislature to amend the state constitution to implement a merit selection system for Pennsylvanian's appellate courts. Senators Jane Earll and Daylin Leach and Representatives Matthew Smith and Will Gabig are the prime sponors of the legislation. Governor Rendell also supports the legislation.
The Courts Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the legislation in December. Robert Heim, Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman of PMC and PMCAction were joined by representatives of civic groups, business organizations, and lawyers and bar associations in advocating for adoption of Merit Selection for the Pennsylvania appellate courts. A full list of those who presented testimony and copies of written submissions are available on the Report on the Hearing page of our blog, JudgesOnMerit.org.
The text of the proposed amendment and accompanying enabling legislation are available: SENATE BILL No. 860 and HOUSE BILL No. 1621 (proposed amendment); SENATE BILL No. 861 and HOUSE BILL No. 1619 (proposed enabling legislation).
Under the proposal, a summary of which is available here, the judicial selection process has four steps: (1) screening and evaluation by a citizens’ nominating commission that recommends the most qualified candidates to the governor; (2) nomination by the governor of a candidate from the commission’s list; (3) confirmation by the Senate; and (4) after a number of years on the bench, retention in a nonpartisan yes-no vote by the public.
The cornerstone of this plan is the Appellate Court Nominating Commission, a broad-based citizens commission that includes public members nominated by organizations throughout the Commonwealth. The commission would be responsible for screening, evaluating and recommending candidates for appellate judge.
The commission is different from every other commission in Pennsylvania and commissions in prior merit selection proposals because it is more inclusive of the public. It includes members who are not appointed by elected officials, but who truly are “public members,” drawn from various segments of Pennsylvania, including civic organizations, business organizations, unions, professional associations, public safety organizations and law school deans. These members will serve as equals alongside members appointed by elected officials.
Pennsylvanians will have the opportunity to provide input at each stage of the process. The public will give information to the commission about applicants for judge, to the governor about individuals recommended by the commission, and to the Senate during the confirmation process. Following a four-year term (and every ten years thereafter), judges stand for retention in nonpartisan yes/no elections. The public makes the ultimate determination about a judge’s continued service.
The Benefits of the Proposal
The merit selection proposal offers a judicial selection process that eliminates money from the system and puts a premium on selecting highly qualified judges. Currently, to run for appellate court, one simply must meet age and residency requirements and be a Pennsylvania lawyer. There are no requirements about legal experience or knowledge, community service, or even having a reputation for being fair and impartial. The new plan writes into the constitution minimum criteria for appellate judges. Anyone who is recommended by the nominating commission will be highly qualified to serve on our appellate courts.
The Public Wants the Opportunity to Weigh in on Judicial Selection
This spring, Governor Rendell held a press conference urging the legislature to give the public the opportunity to vote in a referendum to decide whether to change how we select appellate court judges. Then, in June Governors Rendell, Ridge, Thornburgh and Schweiker joined PMC and PMCAction in a press conference announcing a poll showing widespread public support for Merit Selection.
The poll — conducted for PMC, PMCAction, Justice At Stake, Committee for Economic Development and the American Judicature Society — gauged Pennsylvanians’ obvious frustration with the judicial system: 53 percent of respondents believe the electoral system is broken, 73 percent say the most qualified candidates do not win judicial elections, and 76 percent believe campaign contributions influence judicial decision-making.
A full account of the press conference, which showcased the wide breadth of the bipartisan coalition pushing for the change, is available here.
For more information about the effort to bring merit selection to Pennsylvania's appellate courts, visit our blog JudgesOnMerit.org.
