Merit Selection of Judges Overdue

Given that the state government is more than 3½ months past the deadline to adopt an operating budget, the word "timely" cannot readily be applied to the Legislature.

But the House Judiciary Committee picked a particularly opportune time when it voted Monday, 16-11, to advance a proposed constitutional amendment to change the way Pennsylvania selects judges for its appellate courts. It voted as a parade of personal, dirty ads began to appear on TV across the commonwealth, attacking at least three of the seven candidates seeking three open seats on the state Supreme Court. In this case, the targets all are Republicans. But recent history shows the practice has become one of the few bipartisan enterprises involving state government.

The amendment, sponsored by Republican Rep. Bryan Cutler of York County and Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean of Montgomery County, would end the election of judges for the Commonwealth, Superior and Supreme courts. Instead, appellate judges would be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, after the federal model.

Merit selection and appointment is not a perfect process. It would not eliminate all political considerations from judicial selection. But it would be far superior to the current system, which is a mess. For the courts to be effective, judges must be neutral in practice and perception. Yet the state requires candidates for the apolitical position to conduct political campaigns, including fundraising that often shakes down lawyers and narrow interests with business before the courts.

And the races are decided mostly on political and administrative factors rather than on the merits of the candidates. Most voters know little of the candidates, so when they see the names on the ballot, they tend to vote on the basis of ballot position, candidates' home counties, ethnic names and so on.

For a constitutional amendment to pass, it must pass in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature and then be approved in a statewide referendum. House leaders should bring it to a full vote and pass it so that the Senate can consider it. An ineffective system, a series of scandals involving Supreme Court justices and the dirty ad campaigns should be catalysts for reform.

- Citizens' Voice

The foregoing opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board or Times News LLC.