An editorial in the Times-Tribune of Scranton quotes PMC’s analysis of the cost of the 2009 Pennsylvania Supreme Court election, noting:
Pennsylvania once again leads the nation, as it did in the 2007-2008 election cycle, in the cost of statewide judicial elections. But there is a twist this time, in that the cost is in much more than money alone.
The editorial goes on to detail the heavy spending by the state political parties and other special interests, and notes that the political parties paid special attention this year because of the Supreme Court’s likely role in the upcoming dispute over legislative redistricting.
Then, the editorial recounts new allegations about improper fundraising activities by State Senator Jane Orie on behalf of her sister Joan Orie Melvin’s campaign for Supreme Court. The editorial includes the Senator’s accusations that the probe is politically motivated by the District Attorney (son of a former Supreme Court justice who now works for the gaming industry) in retaliation for the Senator’s anti-gambling stance. The editorial astutely observes:
do my essays
All of that is the sort of inside political baseball for which Pennsylvania is infamous. But the point is that Pennsylvanians shouldn’t have to worry about those back stories if they have business before an appellate court.
This, of course, is the key point. When you go to court to have your disputes resolved, you want them resolved according to the law and the facts. Political calculations, campaign donations, personal vendettas — none of this has any role in the way judges are supposed to decide cases. The problem is, electing appellate court judges the same way we elect political office holders makes it hard to believe that justice and the law prevail in our courtrooms.
The editorial closes with this call to action, which we hope will soon be heeded:
Bills are pending in both houses to begin the process of amending the state constitution to establish merit appointment of appellate judges. Lawmakers should initiate the change.
