HARRISBURG Pennsylvania debates reform in seating judges

Pennsylvania is one of six states that elect all judges in partisan elections.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
HARRISBURG -- Just two years ago, then-Gov. Tom Ridge appeared to be building momentum for a major reform of the way judges are selected in the state, moving from elections to a form of merit-based selection.
Then came the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Ridge went to Washington -- and with him the political wind in the sails of the judicial-election reform effort.
A new Supreme Court justice and three new Superior Court judges will be elected in three weeks, but voters with little or no familiarity with the candidates -- and that will be a substantial portion of the electorate -- will resort to such random elements as the ethnic sound of a surname, hometown boosterism or ballot position.
Is roulette any way to pick a judge?
Even some of the candidates who will appear on the ballot in three weeks are criticizing an electoral system that forces them into the awkward position of having to raise money from the very lawyers and plaintiffs who may one day appear before them.
One judge's complaint
In the midst of his second statewide judicial race, Philadelphia Municipal Court judge Seamus P. McCaffery said it takes too much money to make a real impact in a large state containing five media markets.
"It's an extremely tough, tedious process," said Democrat McCaffery, who unlike some other candidates running for Superior Court, has made it even tougher by refusing campaign donations from lawyers who regularly practice in his court.
Thirty-nine states hold some form of judicial election, including retention elections in which judges are unopposed. But Pennsylvania is among just six states that elect all judges -- from district justices to the state Supreme Court -- in partisan elections, said Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts.
"The current system does not put a premium on qualifications. There are some very good judges, but they're there despite the selection system, not because of it," Marks said.
Favors elections
The Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association has long opposed doing away with judicial elections, arguing that politics are inherent in all selection methods and the public should retain its right to vote.
But the organization's position may be changing, said Mark Phenicie, the PTLA's legislative counsel.
"Some of the important people in my association are beginning to think that perhaps an appointive system -- I hate that term, 'merit selection' -- is worth studying and more discussion by us," Phenicie said.
In some states, a panel establishes a slate of candidates that is then voted on by the public. Others hold nonpartisan elections where candidates are not identified by party. And in a few states, governors appoint judges directly.
Marks' organization advocates a system similar to merit-selection processes used in 25 other states. It calls for a bipartisan commission that would suggest a list of names for appellate vacancies to the governor. The governor would have to pick nominees from that list and they would require Senate confirmation. Periodically, those new judges would have to stand for uncontested retention elections.
The group examining reform options under Ridge never got far enough to recommend a particular mechanism, said Ridge's general counsel Paul Tufano, who spearheaded the project. But there were plenty of ideas.
"The devil's in the details, and the detail [is], how do the names get to the governor?" said Tufano. "And then what would happen once those names went over to, presumably, the Senate for advice and consent? What would happen if they didn't act on a name?"
Schuylkill County Common Pleas Judge Palmer Dolbin, a Republican candidate for Superior Court, said he worries that a merit-selection system could become an elitist institution that everyday people could not control.
"I'm afraid an appointive system would wind up being filled with panels of academics [and] law school professors," Dolbin said. "I prefer to trust the common man over a panel of experts any day."
The question is, when the common man goes to the polls on Nov. 4, what will he know about the lawyers and judges competing for seats on Pennsylvania's highest courts? For many, the answer will be: not much.