Paul Muschick of The Morning Call is, uh, calling for reformation of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court (and other judges) selection process:
I hope Pennsylvania’s politically charged gerrymandering saga has an unintended side effect — encouraging us to reconsider how we select our state Supreme Court and other appellate judges.
Nearly all other states choose their supreme court justices based on their qualifications, through a merit selection process, instead of electing them off a partisan ballot. Forcing candidates to campaign and collect campaign donations can raise questions about political impartiality down the road when they hear cases such as the gerrymandering one.
The fact that four Democratic justices tossed out the state’s Republican-created Congressional district map alone was enough to raise questions about partisanship. The justices’ failure to issue their full opinion in a timely manner, and then to draw a new map themselves when the state Constitution says that’s the Legislature’s job, make it even harder to avoid the appearance of political motivations.
It’s a fair cop, given that judicial candidates are running in partisan races. But I can’t say I like his proposed replacement, which would consist of an initial selection via a complex committee to a list, from which the governor would then select. After an initial four year term, there would be retention election for 10 year terms.
Thus, the pressure of elections is not removed, merely mildly attenuated.
Muschick grants that you’ll never get the politics out of judicial selection, but in order to minimize it, we should give the judges the independence from political and popular interference. While it’s important that judges have sufficient credentials at appointment, I’m even wondering if it’s necessary to mandate those credentials. After all, it’s the Executive’s responsibility to find excellent judges; isn’t it legislative interference to set standards? Isn’t it enough that the legislative branch can impeach and convict a judge for bad behavior or poor legal performance, reducing partisanship through some sort of super-majority requirement?
Still, a call for changing the direct election approach to selecting judges is encouraging.
