Same Old Tune in Pennsylvania
April 27, 2010
Last week, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell made state headlines with yet another plea for the state legislature to pass “merit” selection legislation. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Rendell has been lobbying for “merit” selection of judges for “two decades” to no avail. Despite Rendell’s stunning ineffectiveness, all of the state’s pro-”merit” forces were downright delighted to have the good governor crank up the music one more time.
Joining in on the chorus, for instance, was none other than Shira Goodman who “applaud[ed] the governor’s commitment and support of this cause.” She knows this tune by heart, after all. Her group, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, has been singing the “merit” song for more than 20 years and still has nothing to show for it.
With a track record like that, you’d think donors to groups like PMC would think twice about renewing their annual pledges. But PMC is part of the national campaign bankrolled by hedge fund billionaire George Soros to let legal special interests pick judges. And when you’ve got money like Soros, such donations are but a trifle.
So, the never-ending push in Pennsylvania to end the democratic elections of judges in favor of a secret, closed door process continues.
My guess is that this year’s push will falter just like those of years past. The main stumbling block to taking away the people’s right to choose their judges? The people themselves. Scrapping democratic elections will eventually require a constitutional amendment. And it turns out ordinary Pennsylvania voters don’t really want to revoke their right to choose jurists – a right enshrined in the state constitution – and simply give control of one-third of the state government to a 14-member secretive “merit” panel.
But that’s getting ahead of ourselves. First stop is the state legislature. Despite Rendell’s performance last week, the Philly Inquirer writes that merit’s “prospects appear to be rocky in both chambers, where leaders have expressed outright opposition or are noncommittal.” For instance, State Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi reportedly does not “believe the state should take away the right of the people to elect their judges.”
Rendell says there is “no excuse” for not passing “merit” legislation this year. Actually there is. This is the same system that Pennsylvania has used to choose judges since its founding. And it’s the same system that put Gov. Rendell in office – twice. Pennsylvania’s elected officials should use the same “excuse” for blocking these bills as they have before: Pennsylvanians happen to like their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Judicial Elections, Pennsylvania
3 Responses to “Same Old Tune in Pennsylvania”
Thanks, Dan for writing about Pa. A few points. First, Pennsylvania has not been electing judges since its founding. Like most states, Pa. started with an appointed judiciary and did not start electing judges until the middle of the nineteenth century. Second, the people are not the stumbling block to changing the way we select judges. Amending the constitution is a lengthy process that culminates in a referendum vote by the people. PMC just wants Pennsylvanians to get the opportunity to vote on the issue. We’re not afraid to put the question out there and hear the answer. We hope the legislature will give the people the chance to decide for themselves.
[...] American Courthouse: Same Old Tune in Pennsylvania Dan Pero – 4/27/2010 [...]
Shira Goodman of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts points out that PA has been electing judges since the mid-1800s, not since the state’s founding as I wrote yesterday.
Thanks very much, Shira - appreciate you correcting this point.