As a euphemism, the “merit selection” of judges is a doozey.  It conjures up images of a committee of serious experts making careful, discerning selections while chewing the stems of their reading glasses.  In practice, merit selection is the 21st Century equivalent of a smoke-filled room.

This was brought home by a powerful Philadelphia Daily News piece  earlier this week by Marina Angel, a professor of law at Temple University.  She exposes what is behind the campaign by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts to replace judicial elections with “merit selection.”

Ms. Angel reveals that the proposed 14-member nominating committee that supposedly would take politics out of judicial elections would include eight members appointed by the governor and the majority and minority leaders of the state Senate and House.  It would also include six people appointed by a Noah’s Ark of special interests—a union, a professional organization, a business organization, a public-safety organization, a civic group, and a law-school dean.

So much for taking the politics of out of judicial selections!  We didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, sports fans.  There will be politics aplenty…but it will be all behind the scenes instead of out in the open, with the politicians brokering deals, doling out favors, negotiating quid pro quos…And who is left out?  Joe Voter in Altoona, Philly, Scranton, Pittsburgh – and every town and neighborhood in Pennsylvania.

What we would have, of course, is pure politics, only without those pesky voters and difficult elections to manage.

Ms. Angel examines all the arguments against judicial elections—they’re too costly, they’re too noisy, they’re too contentious and partisan—and asks:

“Why stop at taking away the right to vote for appellate judges?  The same arguments can be made by a group to be called ‘Pennsylvanians for Modern Democracy’ for all elections.” 

This is something to keep in mind as Tennessee, Arizona, Virginia and other states debate the merits and demerits of “merit selection.”