The Committee of Seventy Reaffirms Long-Standing Support for a Judicial Merit Appointment Process
Calls Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Eliminate Local Judicial
Elections a Major Step in the Right Direction
PHILADELPHIA – June 24, 2005 – Zack Stalberg, President and CEO of the Committee of Seventy (“Seventy”), today reaffirmed the local governmental oversight organization’s long-time support for replacing partisan elections of Pennsylvania’s appellate and trial judges with a merit appointment process. Mr. Stalberg participated in a press conference convened at City Hall by state Senators Anthony H. Williams (D-Philadelphia) and Vincent J. Fumo (D-Philadelphia) to introduce their joint proposal to amend the state Constitution. The proposed legislation would provide for the recommendation of judges to serve on the City’s Common Pleas and Municipal Courts by a Philadelphia Judicial Nominating Commission, followed by nomination by the Governor and two-thirds confirmation by the state Senate.
Pennsylvania is one of only a handful of states that continue to elect all of its judges. The constitutional change from an elective system to an appointive process requires passage by majority vote in both chambers of the General Assembly in two consecutive legislative sessions, and then approval by a majority of voters in a statewide referendum. The William/Fumo proposal also calls for approval by a majority of Philadelphia voters. If passed in the current 2005-2006 session, and again in the 2007-2008 session, the earliest the proposal could come before the electorate is 2007.
Mr. Stalberg applauded Senators Williams and Fumo for their commitment to fixing what he called “a irretrievably flawed system where judicial candidates are forced to spend enormous sums of money to buy political support and where ballot position and name recognition are often more significant than qualifications.” He noted that, while there are many fine judges on the local bench, far too many talented lawyers refuse to consider judicial service altogether. “When you know that winning is such a crap shoot, why bother rolling the dice?”
David C. Franceski, Jr., Esquire, a partner at Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP who chairs Seventy’s Policy Committee, observed that while judicial selection reform for the state’s three appellate courts should also be strongly considered, this legislation is an important positive step for the City of Philadelphia . “It is a strong statement by two of our City’s political leaders that they believe partisan elections have not always guaranteed selection of the most qualified, diverse and independent judges.”
Both Stalberg and Franceski acknowledged that the proposed constitutional amendment in its current form is likely to change over the course of the debates in the General Assembly. They added that Seventy could lend its support to a variety of judicial selection plans based on merit, including one that would focus on the appointment of appellate judges with a local “option” that would allow voters in each county to decide whether to appoint or elect their trial court judges. Franceski predicted that other changes might include a variation on who makes appointments to the Philadelphia Judicial Nominating Commission.
Stalberg concluded by pledging Seventy’s continued participation in the legislative debates. “At this juncture, before any proposal has been introduced in the Senate, Seventy wanted to express its unwavering support for a constitutional change in the selection of all Pennsylvania judges. If that change starts with Philadelphia ’s judges, it will be a major step in the right direction.”
The Committee of Seventy is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to advancing good, open and honest government in the city of Philadelphia and the entire Greater Philadelphia region. Seventy’s report on the benefits of replacing partisan judicial elections with an appointment process based on merit – Who Chooses? The Need For Judicial Reform in Pennsylvania – is available on its Web site: www.seventy.org.
|
