Inquirer Editorial: Selecting judges requires a higher standard
A week that brought more embarrassing publicity for the Pennsylvania courts offered the perfect backdrop for Harrisburg lawmakers to tackle long-overdue reforms in how the state picks its top judges.
A week that brought more embarrassing publicity for the Pennsylvania courts offered the perfect backdrop for Harrisburg lawmakers to tackle long-overdue reforms in how the state picks its top judges.
In a Pittsburgh courtroom, a state senator faced retrial allegations that she ordered aides to work on the political campaigns of her sister, Joan Orie Melvin, who was elected to the state Supreme Court in 2009. While not charged with wrongdoing herself, Melvin has been notified that she's a target of a separate grand-jury probe.
In Philadelphia, a Traffic Court judge resigned just as he was being brought up on disciplinary charges that he showed a female court staffer photos of his genitals. Even before he was elected in 2007, Willie F. Singletary appeared to be unfit to sit on the bench when he was captured on camera hinting that he could help campaign contributors with traffic tickets.
The controversies point to twin problems with the state's system of electing all of its judges: the corrupting influence of campaigns and fund-raising, and whether voters are adequately equipped to choose qualified candidates for the bench.
House legislation aired at a hearing Thursday in Philadelphia would address those problems for the appellate bench, at least. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Bryan Cutler (R., Lancaster), would switch to appointments for Supreme Court justices and Superior and Commonwealth Court judges.
Civic, legal, business, and religious groups favor the reform, which would have to be approved as a constitutional amendment by both the state legislature and voters. A nominating panel would recommend candidates to the governor, whose choices would go before the state Senate for confirmation.
In other states, appointed benches tend to be more diverse, and the process spares candidates from having to raise the millions needed to mount statewide campaigns. A recent study found that, in two out of three cases to come before Pennsylvania's top court, litigants had given a campaign contribution to at least one justice hearing the case.
In addition to high-profile controversies involving allegations of judicial misconduct, voters repeatedly tell pollsters that the mere involvement of judges in fund-raising creates the perception that justice is for sale.
While a frequent claim about merit-based appointment is that voters don't directly pick judges, in fact, every appointee would have to stand for a retention election after four years.
