Shira Goodman at JudgesOnMerit.org argues that Secret Selection (aka “merit selection” – where lawyers meet behind closed doors to pick judges) is actually more democratic than elections by the people.

So let me get this straight: Choosing judges by direct election, where all Pennsylvania citizens can exercise their constitutional right to vote, is undemocratic. But a system where just 14 commissioners (mostly lawyers) meet in secret, with absolutely no public accountability, to decide who sits on the bench is the height of democracy?

Goodman worries that judicial elections have become too expensive. She has a point – but the same can be said of all elections.

In the recent Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama spent more than $8 million in just four weeks – more than double the $3.3 million spent by Hillary Clinton. Should Pennsylvanians give up their right to vote in the Democratic primary and allow party leaders to select the nominee behind closed doors? Governor Rendell outspent his opponent by 4:1 in his 2006 reelection campaign. Should governors be chosen by secret committee too?

While we’re at it, let’s set up commissions to pick our mayors, senators, and representatives. That way campaign cash won’t poison these elections and compromise the candidates. In the end, we’ll have no elections, but a perfect democracy – at least in the eyes of Shira Goodman.

Everyone agrees that judges must be independent and impartial. But, like every other public servant, they must also be accountable to the people. Proponents of Secret Selection want to turn over control of 1/3rd of the state’s government to a tiny handful of people, while shutting out millions of voters. There are lots of adjectives to describe such a system, but democracy isn’t one of them.