Most of the contributions toward the 2009 Supreme Court contest between Republican Joan Orie Melvin - the eventual winner - and Democrat Jack Panella came from two sources. Melvin benefited from the state GOP's $1.4 million, while the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association gave nearly as much to Panella, according to the report from Justice at Stake Campaign (justiceatstake.org.)
The local court reform group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a partner in the report, has documented that three out of four state residents believe political donations influence judges' rulings. Those perceptions were borne out in a recent Justice at Stake Campaign poll showing that an even greater percentage of citizens see campaign giving as having "some" or a "great deal" of sway in judges' decisions.
That perception threatens to erode confidence in the state courts as places where every litigant can get a fair shake. The remedy is to take appellate court candidates out of the business of raising campaign donations and select them through merit-based appointments. After an initial term, these judges would go before the voters in a yes-or-no retention election.
With merit selection legislation pending in both the state House and Senate, and the support of five current and former governors, it's time for Pennsylvania leaders to push forward. Legislative hearings are in the offing, where interest-group opponents no doubt will continue their rearguard fight. But the facts on the impact of uncontrolled campaign funding, as well as majority public sentiment, are solidly behind making the switch to an appointed appellate judiciary.
