“Merit” Nonsense in Pennsylvania
June 17, 2010
The editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are foaming at the mouth because a bill they support that aims to strip Pennsylvanians of their right to vote for judges – a right enshrined in Pennsylvania’s Constitution – is being held up by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Tom Caltagirone. But the people of Pennsylvania should be thankful that at least one legislator is willing to stand up for their democratic rights.
In its snarky attack on Rep. Caltagirone, the Post-Gazette starkly reveals all the arrogance and condescension of the “merit” selection movement. Powerful elites support it, so who is one little legislator to stand in their way? Democratic judicial elections are just a “lottery” anyway because voters just pick the candidate with a “famous name.” Retention elections are good enough for voters – never mind that fact that judges standing for retention lose about as often as the old Soviet Politburo members.
The Post-Gazette asks “what possible harm could there be in letting lawmakers vote for something that must be endorsed or rejected by the public?” Here’s an answer: In a poll released by “merit” selection’s own supporters, 75% of Pennsylvanians said “merit” selection won’t take politics out of judicial selection and could even make the selection of judges “more political.” (Question 36) And nearly 7 out of 10 say “merit” selection transfers the power to choose judges from voters to “politicians and trial lawyers.” (Question 37)
Pennsylvanians instinctively understand that “merit” selection is really just a rigged game to put control of judicial selection in the hands of special interests. If this proposal makes it to the ballot, these special interests will spend millions upon millions to make sure that the process for choosing judges in Pennsylvania will be “one man, one vote, one time.”