Opponents of Democratic Judicial Elections Keep Pushing The Rock Up The Hill In PA
September 19, 2008
For about 20 years, a group called Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) has been lobbying to abolish democratic judicial elections in the state by revoking the right of 8.3 million Pennsylvania voters to decide who will sit on their courts and turn the job over to a 14-member committee dominated by lawyers.
Proponents of this scheme gathered in Harrisburg this week to announce their intention to reintroduce their plan in the next legislative session set to begin in January. Perhaps cognizant that two decades of failure suggests some modification in their approach, PMC’s Shira Goodman conceded that the bill might be revised to allow a few more “public members” to join the lawyers on the panel.
Of course, Pennsylvania already has a procedure to ensure that the voice of every “public member” can be heard: It’s called an election.
Temple University Law Professor Marina Angel cut through the fog of political posturing and goo-gooing that PMC and others use to justify the anti-democratic nature of their plan:
This is a split between people who believe in the franchise and those that don’t.
Or, a split between people who believe voters are qualified to decide who will control one-third of Pennsylvania’s state government and those who don’t.
Professor Angel also skewered the proposal for exempting any judicial nominating panel from complying with the state’s Right-to-Know Law. Ms. Goodman said the proposed commission needs to meet in secret “to make sure judicial applicants are comfortable with the process,” but she allowed that some meetings might be opened to the public. Since when did it become necessary to see to it that our public servants “are comfortable with the process” by which we choose them? I’m sure there are many days when Barack Obama and John McCain aren’t “comfortable with the process” of getting elected president and would gladly turn the decision over to some secret tribunal controlled by their favorite special interest groups. But that’s not how democracies select their leaders.
Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Judicial Elections, Pennsylvania, State Battlegrounds
4 Responses to “Opponents of Democratic Judicial Elections Keep Pushing The Rock Up The Hill In PA”
[...] Opponents of Democratic Judicial Elections Keep Pushing The Rock Up The Hill In PA [...]
Not surprisingly, you have mischaracterized my testimony about the need to make the nomination commission’s work more public. After my testimony suggesting that there should NOT be an exemption from the Open Records law and that instead, there should be public hearings and an opportunity for the public to present to the commission information about the applicants for judicial vacancies, I was questioned by one of the Senators about whether public hearings would present the opportunity for litigants with a grudge against a sitting judge to seek revenge. I responded that while that could be a risk, PMC and PMCAction had come to believe that much of the proceedings of the commission should be made public. I explained that the exemption from the Open Records law was initially inserted in the legislation in order to create an environment in which people were encouraged to submit their names without fear that not being selected would damage their reputations or careers. I then explained that we have come to believe that if seeking to serve on the judiciary, applicants should be willing to make their names public and allow the public to comment on their qualifications to serve. Dan, I know we disagree about this issue, but I wish you would just get your facts right. Those who are interested in the facts can visit our site, http://www.judgesonmerit.org, or watch the hearing for themselves, visit http://www.pcntv.com to find out when it will be replayed.
Shira, the Legal Intelligencer (http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202424577016) reported your testimony as the following:
“Goodman said the proposed legislation was set up to have closed commission meetings in order to make sure judicial applicants were comfortable with the process, but she thinks a nominating commission could set up rules for both public and closed hearings.”
If you think the Legal Intelligencer didn’t give you or PMC adequate credit for changing your position, then I apologize and I promise to make readers of American Courthouse aware of your new stance.
I’m gratified that you and PMC “have come to believe that much of the proceedings of the commission should be made public.” I also wholeheartedly endorse your new position that “if seeking to serve on the judiciary, applicants should be willing to make their names public and allow the public to comment on their qualifications to serve.” I know we don’t see this issue the same way, but it’s extraordinary to me that any candidate for any public office would somehow think it appropriate (or democratic) for their names to be kept hidden from the public or that the people not have the chance to comment on their qualifications.
While I’m glad you no longer share this view, isn’t there an easier way to make sure the public can “comment on [a candidate's] qualifications to serve”? Isn’t that precisely what an election is?
Thanks, Dan. I appreciate your comments. I thought you had watched the hearing and were paraphrasing my testimony. I didn’t realize you were using the Legal Intelligencer as your source. Reading that quote in isolation hints at our change in position, but in my comment, I tried to give a fuller picture of what I said at the hearing. We will be requesting that when the legislation is introduced in the new session that the sponsors take out the exemption from the Open Records law. As to whether elections really allow voters to weigh in on the candidates’ qualifications, well, you know that I believe judicial elections aren’t really designed to accomplish that.