"Campaign contributions: Judges for sale?" (editorial, Thursday) raises an age-old question about the influence of contributions to judicial candidates on judicial decision-making. Prompting the question is the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of
Caperton v. Massey
, a West Virginia case that asks the court to decide if (and when) judges are required to recuse - step aside from - cases involving major contributors.
Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts joined an amicus brief urging the court to set a standard for recusal in such cases.
Pennsylvania elects all judges in partisan elections and has seen the steadily increasing influence of money in judicial elections. Money in the process has led the public to believe that the scales of justice are out of whack. This is unacceptable. A strong decision by the Supreme Court requiring recusal in at least some cases will help rebalance the scales.
But more is needed. It's time to get judges out of the fund-raising business altogether. Today, when most of those surveyed are worried about the impact of contributions on how judges rule, we need a system that takes money far away from the scales of justice. When you go to court, you want a judge who considers the facts and the law; you shouldn't be worrying about whether your lawyer or the opposing side gave a campaign contribution. Replacing elections for appellate court judges with merit selection is the way to eliminate this concern.
Lynn A. Marks
Shira J. Goodman
Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts
Philadelphia
www.pmconline.org.
www.judgesonmerit.org.
