Judicial Elections in Pennsylvania: A “Bad Taste”
November 11, 2009
The folks at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts didn’t like Pennsylvania’s elections last week – in fact, those elections “left a bad taste” in their mouth. In a Philadelphia Daily News article yesterday, they complained that voter turnout was “appalling” and fretted that voters “feel unprepared to decide” who should sit on the bench. Even worse, those who did vote may have been swayed by “random or irrelevant factors.” Their solution: Let’s get rid of voting altogether!
If turnout alone is going to dictate how we pick our public servants, we’re going to have to start cancelling a lot of elections. FairVote is a civic minded group trying to pump up voter turnout. “In many cities,” the group notes, “mayors of major cities are often elected with single-digit turnout:”
“… turnout was only 5 percent of registered voters in a recent Dallas mayoral election, 6 percent in Charlotte, and 7 percent in Austin.”
Should we abolish democratic elections for mayor?
Congressional primaries also typically have low turnouts. FairVote reports “turnout was only 7 percent in a recent Tennessee primary, and was only 3 percent for a U.S. Senate primary in Texas.”
Should we start letting an unelected commission of “experts” choose who is going to represent us in Washington too?
The solution proposed by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts predictably is that old standby: merit selection. I’d rather have a fair, fully-transparent, democratic election where even a small turnout of voters represented the state than allow a few lawyers and other unelected, unaccountable special interests select state judges behind closed doors.