Partisan Lobbying, Mass Incarceration, and Gerrymandering:
Should Judicial elections be Abolished?
Zane Podsobinski, Winner of the PMC Annual Writing Contest
Introduction
Around the world, the idea that a judge could be elected seems rather perplexing. Typically, most nations utilize an appointment system that is akin to the procedures used in selecting federal judges in the United States.[1] However, while the federal judges are appointed via the executive branch, the vast majority of states appoint some of their judges through an election process. A total of thirty-nine states hold some form of elections in appointing judges in their respective trial courts and intermediate appellate courts, while thirty-eight of those states hold judicial elections for their high courts (typically referred to as “Supreme Courts”).[2] In comparison, only two other nations, Switzerland and Japan, use any form of judicial election, and even they refrain from using it to such a degree.[3] Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once opined, in reference to judicial elections, “No other nation in the world does that, because they realize you’re not going to get fair and impartial judges that way.”[4]
[1] Adam Liptik, U.S. voting for judges perplexes other nations, The New York Times, May 25, 2008.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/americas/25iht-judge.4.13194819.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Americas&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article (last visited February 8, 2019).
[2] American Bar Association, Fact Sheet on Judicial Selection Methods in the States, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/leadership/fact_sheet.authcheckdam.pdf
(last visited February 3, 2019).
[3] Liptik, supra note 1; “Smaller Swiss cantons elect judges, and appointed justices on the Japanese Supreme Court must sometimes face retention elections, though scholars there say those elections are a formality.”
[4] Id.
Click here the full paper.
Around the world, the idea that a judge could be elected seems rather perplexing. Typically, most nations utilize an appointment system that is akin to the procedures used in selecting federal judges in the United States.[1] However, while the federal judges are appointed via the executive branch, the vast majority of states appoint some of their judges through an election process. A total of thirty-nine states hold some form of elections in appointing judges in their respective trial courts and intermediate appellate courts, while thirty-eight of those states hold judicial elections for their high courts (typically referred to as “Supreme Courts”).[2] In comparison, only two other nations, Switzerland and Japan, use any form of judicial election, and even they refrain from using it to such a degree.[3] Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once opined, in reference to judicial elections, “No other nation in the world does that, because they realize you’re not going to get fair and impartial judges that way.”[4]
[1] Adam Liptik, U.S. voting for judges perplexes other nations, The New York Times, May 25, 2008.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/americas/25iht-judge.4.13194819.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Americas&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article (last visited February 8, 2019).
[2] American Bar Association, Fact Sheet on Judicial Selection Methods in the States, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/leadership/fact_sheet.authcheckdam.pdf
(last visited February 3, 2019).
[3] Liptik, supra note 1; “Smaller Swiss cantons elect judges, and appointed justices on the Japanese Supreme Court must sometimes face retention elections, though scholars there say those elections are a formality.”
[4] Id.
Click here the full paper.
Handbook on Rules and Procedures for Landlord-Tenant Relations in the Fifth Judicial District - Allegheny County
As an organization dedicated to bettering Pennsylvania’s court system and mending fractured relationships between the public and the judiciary, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts set out to develop programming and resources to address the housing crisis in Pittsburgh. This crisis emerged from a combination of a lack of affordable housing and an increase in evictions of low-income individuals. Recent trends in Pittsburgh demonstrate that the city’s median rent has risen significantly, while the number of affordable housing units has declined. The Housing Needs Assessment commissioned by the City of Pittsburgh found that there is a deficit of around 15,000 affordable housing units for households earning less than 30% of the city’s median income. Additionally, in 2017, the Allegheny County judicial district docketed 14,304 new landlord/tenant disputes and 6,252 Orders for Possession (evictions). These two statistics signify an environment where low-income renters struggle to find housing if they are evicted. Experiencing an eviction or a lack of adequate housing directly and negatively impacts physical and mental health, childcare and custody, education, job security and neighborhood resiliency, further straining a community’s resources.
With the support of the Pittsburgh Foundation, PMC began to develop a handbook to guide landlords and tenants through conflicts in 2018. In creating the handbook, we found that there are few existing resources that provide this information. Therefore, our Handbook on Rules and Procedures for Landlord-Tenant Relations in the Fifth Judicial District – Allegheny County, published in January 2019, contains original landlord and tenant-facing content intended to inform individuals about housing law from a layperson’s perspective.
The booklet contains general information concerning tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities under Pennsylvania and federal law. The information does not provide and should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. Nor should it be used or relied upon with regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting with a lawyer.
Click here for the full Handbook.
Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts 30th Anniversary Gala
Philadelphia College of Physicians
Keynote Address
Timothy K. Lewis - October 25, 2018
It's an honor to be here for the 30th anniversary of PMC.
As Maida noted recently, it’s taken three decades of hard work and coalition-building to arrive at
the precipice of a merit selection system for appellate judges and justices. Many of you – my
friends Paul Titus, Lynn Marks, Ben Picker; and of course, Phyllis Beck; and too many others
for me to mention – have led the way. There’s much more work to be done, but we’re getting
closer.
Stephen Hawking’s greatest concern as he approached the end of his life was how divided we’ve
become. But his final message was one of hope. Hope. “How do we shape the future?” he
asked in the final chapter of his last book. “By remembering to look up at the stars, and not
down at our feet,” he answered.
I’ve thought about that a lot in the past 24 hours.
Over three years ago, I had the honor of delivering the Higginbotham Lecture to the Philadelphia
Bar. We were, at that time, enduring national racial strife in the wake of shootings by the police
and shootings of the police. I spoke about our national character and our struggle to find it and
further it in difficult times.
Click here for the full speech
As Maida noted recently, it’s taken three decades of hard work and coalition-building to arrive at
the precipice of a merit selection system for appellate judges and justices. Many of you – my
friends Paul Titus, Lynn Marks, Ben Picker; and of course, Phyllis Beck; and too many others
for me to mention – have led the way. There’s much more work to be done, but we’re getting
closer.
Stephen Hawking’s greatest concern as he approached the end of his life was how divided we’ve
become. But his final message was one of hope. Hope. “How do we shape the future?” he
asked in the final chapter of his last book. “By remembering to look up at the stars, and not
down at our feet,” he answered.
I’ve thought about that a lot in the past 24 hours.
Over three years ago, I had the honor of delivering the Higginbotham Lecture to the Philadelphia
Bar. We were, at that time, enduring national racial strife in the wake of shootings by the police
and shootings of the police. I spoke about our national character and our struggle to find it and
further it in difficult times.
Click here for the full speech
2018 Philadelphia Bail Watch Report
Findings and Recommendations based on 611 Bail Hearings
The Philadelphia Bail Fund and Pennsylvania for Modern Courts launched Philadelphia Bail Watch in April 2018 in order to shine a light on the city's preliminary arraignment process.
Philadelphia Bail Watch is a volunteer court watch initiative that invites members of the public to observe preliminary arraignment hearings – the first stage of a criminal case in Philadelphia – in order to learn about the process and provide their perceptions of what they witness. By collecting and sharing the public’s perceptions of Philadelphia’s preliminary arraignment process, the Philadelphia Bail Fund and Pennsylvanians
for Modern Courts seek to monitor the current process and advocate for improvements in Philadelphia’s preliminary arraignment process.
Click here for the full report
Philadelphia Bail Watch is a volunteer court watch initiative that invites members of the public to observe preliminary arraignment hearings – the first stage of a criminal case in Philadelphia – in order to learn about the process and provide their perceptions of what they witness. By collecting and sharing the public’s perceptions of Philadelphia’s preliminary arraignment process, the Philadelphia Bail Fund and Pennsylvanians
for Modern Courts seek to monitor the current process and advocate for improvements in Philadelphia’s preliminary arraignment process.
Click here for the full report
2017 Report & Recommendations on Improving Pennsylvania's Judicial Discipline System
Over a year ago, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts perceived a need to re-examine Pennsylvania’s judicial disciplinary system.
Our concern stemmed from the reported misconduct of three Supreme Court justices: Joan Orie Melvin, Seamus McCaffery, and Michael Eakin, and the disciplinary cases surrounding that alleged misconduct. These cases not only exposed flaws in the integrity of our highest judicial officials, but it also exposed significant process issues within Pennsylvania’s judicial disciplinary system, leading us to question the integrity of the institutions as well as the individuals.
By focusing on the flaws and failures of both the individuals and the entities involved in these scandals specifically, and the judicial disciplinary system in general, this report explores how individual and institutional integrity within the judicial disciplinary process can be cultivated through the supporting values of ethical behavior, impartiality, accountability, openness, transparency, and fairness. It uses a chronologically-focused, factual narrative of the Melvin, McCafferty, and Eakin scandals in order to establish historical contexts for subsequent commentaries, and offers ten specific recommendations for reform. The objective is to shed light on our judicial disciplinary culture, while the ultimate focus is on pragmatic reforms that can be implemented by the Judicial Conduct Board (“JCB”), the Court of Judicial Discipline (“CJD”), and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
To view the full report, please click HERE.
Our concern stemmed from the reported misconduct of three Supreme Court justices: Joan Orie Melvin, Seamus McCaffery, and Michael Eakin, and the disciplinary cases surrounding that alleged misconduct. These cases not only exposed flaws in the integrity of our highest judicial officials, but it also exposed significant process issues within Pennsylvania’s judicial disciplinary system, leading us to question the integrity of the institutions as well as the individuals.
By focusing on the flaws and failures of both the individuals and the entities involved in these scandals specifically, and the judicial disciplinary system in general, this report explores how individual and institutional integrity within the judicial disciplinary process can be cultivated through the supporting values of ethical behavior, impartiality, accountability, openness, transparency, and fairness. It uses a chronologically-focused, factual narrative of the Melvin, McCafferty, and Eakin scandals in order to establish historical contexts for subsequent commentaries, and offers ten specific recommendations for reform. The objective is to shed light on our judicial disciplinary culture, while the ultimate focus is on pragmatic reforms that can be implemented by the Judicial Conduct Board (“JCB”), the Court of Judicial Discipline (“CJD”), and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
To view the full report, please click HERE.
2004 Citizens' Guide to Pennsylvania's Judicial Discipline Process
The two-tiered Judicial Discipline System is comprised of the Judicial Conduct Board and the Court of Judicial Discipline. Each organization serves a different function in the administration of judicial discipline.
Report and Recommendations for Improving Pennsylvania's Judicial Discipline System (2011)
The last few years have brought too many stories of Pennsylvania judges engaging in unethical
behavior, violating the Code of Judicial Conduct (“the Judicial Code”), and even engaging in
criminal conduct. Public trust and confidence in our courts is weakened when judges are
disciplined because of unethical or improper behavior on the bench or the campaign trail and
when judges face criminal charges.
What helps maintain public confidence in the face of such problems is the knowledge that: there
are clear ethical rules and guidelines governing judicial behavior; judges and the public are
aware of these rules; the rules are enforced; and violations of the rules are punished.
Click here for the full report.
behavior, violating the Code of Judicial Conduct (“the Judicial Code”), and even engaging in
criminal conduct. Public trust and confidence in our courts is weakened when judges are
disciplined because of unethical or improper behavior on the bench or the campaign trail and
when judges face criminal charges.
What helps maintain public confidence in the face of such problems is the knowledge that: there
are clear ethical rules and guidelines governing judicial behavior; judges and the public are
aware of these rules; the rules are enforced; and violations of the rules are punished.
Click here for the full report.
View From the Ground: A Reform Group's Perspective on the Ongoing Effort to Achieve Merit Selection of Judges
This article describes the history of judicial selection in the state of Pennsylvania. It describes
the judicial selection reform movement and the growth of the organization Pennsylvanians for
Modern Courts (”PMC”) which devises solutions to meet the various challenges to judicial integrity
in Pennsylvania. It focuses on the merit system that PMC has been trying to achieve for
Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.
Click here for the full article.
the judicial selection reform movement and the growth of the organization Pennsylvanians for
Modern Courts (”PMC”) which devises solutions to meet the various challenges to judicial integrity
in Pennsylvania. It focuses on the merit system that PMC has been trying to achieve for
Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.
Click here for the full article.
Lessons From an Unusual Retention Election
On November 8, 2005, something happened in Pennsylvania that has never happened before: an
appellate judge, a supreme court justice no less, lost an uncontested retention election. Not only was the loss unprecedented, but with the exception of one retention election in 1993, appellate justices and judges in Pennsylvania routinely have won retention by margins of 70% to 30%. This year, one justice lost his retention election and another barely won with just 54% of the vote. Retention elections.
Click here for the full article.
appellate judge, a supreme court justice no less, lost an uncontested retention election. Not only was the loss unprecedented, but with the exception of one retention election in 1993, appellate justices and judges in Pennsylvania routinely have won retention by margins of 70% to 30%. This year, one justice lost his retention election and another barely won with just 54% of the vote. Retention elections.
Click here for the full article.
Report From the Governor's Judicial Reform Commission (1988)
PMC’s founders were motivated to create a new organization following this report from the Pennsylvania Judicial Reform Commission.
Governor Robert Casey commissioned this blue-ribbon panel of civic leaders, public officials, legal professionals, and members of the judiciary. PMC Treasurer, and then a Judge on Pennsylvania's Superior Court, Judge Phyllis W. Beck chaired the committee.
The panel discovered that confidence in the judiciary was appallingly low, in large part due to the system of electing judges and the fundraising that goes along with it.
Click here for the report.
Governor Robert Casey commissioned this blue-ribbon panel of civic leaders, public officials, legal professionals, and members of the judiciary. PMC Treasurer, and then a Judge on Pennsylvania's Superior Court, Judge Phyllis W. Beck chaired the committee.
The panel discovered that confidence in the judiciary was appallingly low, in large part due to the system of electing judges and the fundraising that goes along with it.
Click here for the report.
|
|
Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts is a statewide nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to ensuring that all Pennsylvanians can come to our courts with confidence that they will be heard by qualified, fair, and impartial judges
Contact Us: Phone: 215.569.1150 Email: info@pmconline.org 1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., 2 Penn Center, Suite 1140, Philadelphia, PA 19102 |