Merit Selection Facts

 Joe Shaheeli's article about merit selection for the appellate courts misinforms readers about this critical issue. Changing how we select appellate judges requires amending the State Constitution. Recently, bills were introduced in the State Legislature for that purpose. Shaheeli labels this "an end run by the proponents of merit selection." This suggests some deception or procedural short cuts. But introducing legislation in the State House and Senate is not an "end run" around anything. It is the democratic process in action.

Passage of these bills is only the first step in a lengthy process. If the State House and Senate pass the measures in two consecutive sessions, then the proposed change goes before the people in a referendum vote.

Shaheeli echoes the familiar refrain of merit selection opponents: It "takes away" the right of the people to vote. But the State Constitution can only be amended if the people of Pennsylvania vote to change it. Supporters of merit selection want the public to have a chance to decide which system of judicial selection they prefer. Opponents want to deny the voters that opportunity.

Shaheeli also mistakenly suggests merit selection is just like the Federal judicial appointment system. In fact, they are very different ways of selecting judges. Merit selection includes key components that are absent from the Federal appointment system. The first is a mandated citizens nominating commission that recommends the most highly qualified candidates to the Governor for possible nomination to fill an appellate court vacancy. Commission members are appointed by a mix of elected officials and nonelected entities, including civic groups, law-school deans, unions, business organizations and public-safety groups.

The proposed merit selection system also includes retention elections. Federal judges are appointed for life; under merit selection, appellate judges face the public in statewide retention elections after a four-year initial term, and every 10 years thereafter.

Reasonable people can disagree about the best way to select appellate judges, but the voters of Pennsylvania should have the opportunity to weigh in on the issue. That's all we're asking for.

K.O. Myers
Legal Intern, Pennsylvanians For Modern Courts
 

Wrong Priorities

DA Lynne Abraham has confirmed what many of us have been saying about the gun legislation passed unanimously by City Council and signed into law by Mayor Nutter: "They are, on their face, illegal acts." She will not enforce them.
Mayor Nutter’s “New Day, New Way” Philadelphia is resembling “Old Day, Old Way” by continuing the tradition of making race a divisive topic, rewriting history, ignoring real solutions to crime problems and thinking he is above the law he has sworn to uphold.

Nutter said, “Almost 232 years ago, a group of concerned Americans took matters in their own hands and did what they needed to do by declaring that the time had come for a change.”

This is a shameful twisting of history. The courageous Americans he is referencing fought the British to protect our civil liberties and to enact an equal basis of law, two actions that the legislation he signed is opposed to.
The Mayor is ignoring real solutions to crime. We have a broken radio system for police that doesn’t even work in the subways. Smaller cities than ours have GPS in police cars to enable quick and efficient dispatch to emergency calls. We also have a negative example in Washington, D.C., where gun bans still leave it with national highs in gun violence.

From an Inquirer article: “In Philadelphia, the police unit responsible for tracking guns is only now digging out of a 6,000-case backlog caused by inadequate staffing. The delays got so bad that judges sometimes dismissed cases because necessary lab work wasn't finished in time. And most of the state's 67 county prosecutors didn't file any cases against alleged straw buyers in 2006 or 2007, court records show.”

Instead of properly funding the police to handle straw buyer cases under current law, Nutter is choosing to spend money on lawyers that will be in court trying to defend the laws in the Supreme Court. Without proper funding, such legislation would only increase the backlog.

Adam Lang
29th Ward Republican Chairman