No Merit in Pennsylvania
January 6, 2010
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorializes on an unfolding judicial scandal in which two county judges “face a 48-count federal racketeering case for allegedly taking payoffs to jail teens.” According to the Inquirer, this scandal represents “clear evidence” that Pennsylvania voters should be stripped of their constitutional right to select judges in competitive elections.
Huh?
The logic here, such as it is, seems to be that voters aren’t sophisticated enough to keep potentially corrupt judges off the bench. But a “merit” panel, on the other hand, could somehow divine which judicial candidates are apt to lose their moral bearings on the court and would thus pick only demi-gods, not the crooked rabble chosen by voters.
Actually, I think the authors of Pennsylvania’s Constitution had it right. They understood that not all public servants are angels, and that the best way to keep them accountable was make them go before the people on a regular basis to keep their positions. Under merit selection, once a judge is on the court it is almost impossible to remove him/her, as the experiences in states like Tennessee and Missouri demonstrate.
The truth is, neither judicial elections nor “merit” selection are infallible and both systems can produce judges that are lazy, incompetent and even corrupt. Fortunately the legal system itself can charge and remove judges who are truly venal – such as the two in Pennsylvania if the allegations prove true. But it seems to me that making judges even less accountable through “merit” selection is a strange way to keep them honest.