Appoint? Objection! Rendell's proposed change for appellate judges sidesteps voters - and even concerns.

Gov. Rendell has proposed replacing Pennsylvania's system of electing appellate judges with the "Missouri Plan." Named for the state that first adopted it, the system is sometimes misleadingly called "merit selection" by its supporters, though there is no evidence that it selects more qualified judges than any other system. It provides for the governor to appoint appellate judges, subject to Senate confirmation, from a list of nominees approved by a commission. The appointed judges would serve a four-year term and then run unopposed for a 10-year term in a retention election.

The proposal attempts to correct perceived defects in judicial elections, including the possibility that voters may choose the best-looking or most recognizable candidates rather than those who best analyze legal issues. A related concern is that elections encourage judges to follow public opinion instead of the law. Further, critics contend, elections create a conflict of interest as judges must raise campaign funding from the lawyers and litigants who appear before them.

All of these are problems, but the governor's proposal does little to address them. Reforms within the election system would better solve these problems, while still allowing the people a direct say in the selection of officials who regularly make important decisions affecting public policy.

All judges - especially appellate judges - make policy, even as they follow the law. The "law" - from constitutions and statutes to judge-made "common" law in areas such as property and tort - leaves plenty of room for judges with different philosophies to reach different results. Accordingly, the choice of judge makes a huge difference. The question is whether we want judges making policy when they are neither chosen by, nor accountable to, the people.

This is not to say elections are perfect. There is no doubt, for example, that many voters do not know the names of judicial candidates, let alone any distinctions between them. Voters are under-informed, however, in part because candidates in Pennsylvania are prevented from explaining how their decisions would differ from those of their opponents. (This prohibition on speech that "appears to commit" a candidate remains on the books despite a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision indicating the rule may be unconstitutional.) If our concern with elections is that voters don't have enough information, we should provide them with more information, not take away their vote.