Another ethical imbroglio, another call for reform.
The state Supreme Court's suspension of one of its justices has prompted reform advocates to question why Pennsylvania uses partisan elections to choose its appellate court judges.
Revelations of a state exchange of sexually explicit emails led to the most recent display of high court rancor. The suspension of Justice Seamus McCaffery was accompanied by a string of public statements from members of the state's high court — allegations of impropriety or mental illness and one mutual grudge between McCaffery and the court's chief justice.
"I would hope that people would reflect on the fact that we have had this kind of controversy and it has involved elected judges," said Paul Titus, a lawyer on the advisory board of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC). "We have the whole controversy with Justice (Rolf) Larsen, who was ultimately removed from the court and impeached by the House. We had the unfortunate situation with Justice Joan Orie Melvin who was convicted of criminal conduct and had to step off the court. And now we have this."
PMC has long advocated a multi-step process of appointing judges with the help of a nominating commission, the sitting governor, and the state Senate. Supporters call the system "merit selection," emphasizing the absence of political fund-raising and partisan identification. Skeptics say it would require some kind of independent vetting process to remotely deserve the name.
Last year, four former governors signed a letter in support of merit selection, a change that would require a constitutional amendment. Shortly thereafter, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron Castille cast doubt on the idea, suggesting it would need to follow the example of the federal system and have "a little group called the Federal Bureau of Investigation" to look into nominees' backgrounds.
Lynn Marks, PMC's executive director, has called merit selection the most fundamental change that could be implemented in the wake of McCaffery's suspension (she also urged the Office of Attorney General to investigate other emails exchanged between its employees and Supreme Court justices and check for inappropriate communications).
"Moving forward, we hope the Court will be mindful of their leadership role and maintain a sense of decorum in their public statements," said Marks. "The recent scandals are only the latest example of why electing judges is bad for Pennsylvanians."
