Judicial selection process -- reform on the table
Following through on intentions declared around this year's May primary, Philadelphia's legislators are attempting to reform the way that the city's judges are selected -- hopefully replacing the current payola scheme with something that will better take qualifications into account. State Senators Williams and Fumo have introduced a bill that would set up a new process, including
- a judicial nominating commission (with inter- and intra-party balance of input)
- allowing the governor to make the final selections from a short list
- giving voters the option to vote to retain or oust judges after four years.
posted by ACM at 11:57 AM
3 Comments:
good post- though I do wish a more objective source had been quoted in the story than Fumo or Williams. What does the Bar say about this? What about the ACLU? I am cautious about supporting a cut-back on my voting rights without more details.
PA is in the minority of states that still have judicial elections. Why shouldn't we join more progressive states in having open, participatory selection processes? It's not like the local judicial elections - Philadelphia in particular - are "real" elections. Rep. Cohen - didn't your brother get in as a judge in Philadelphia? Are you concerned that he might not have made it in on the merits if he didn't have the party bosses backing him?
It seems to me that the current system is broken when we have so many candidates that voters have to make a full-time project of figuring out whom to vote for in the primary and when owning a restaurant becomes a better guarantee of getting elected than the recommendation of the bar. I value my voting rights, but it's much easier to get together energy and an educational outreach to oust somebody when they come up for voter approval (which is part of the current framework being discussed) than it is to sort through a swirling ballet of little-known candidates for important but sub-radar positions.
We're not talking about allowing state Republicans to decide the choices. The nominating committee is supposed to have reps from both parties, as well as various consituencies within each party (legislature, city, legal associations, DA, etc.). Yes, the governor gets to choose, but if a group like that can agree on a short list, we're well ahead of the current criteria (of anybody willing to pony up the right amount of money).
The only argument that I can see against that is that progressive groups have occasionally organized enough to wedge a good candidate in through the current process (as *one* in the last primary), but at the cost of numerous terrible choices. I'm not sure that one progressive (elected on politics or ballot position?) offsets the three or four bottom-feeders that got swept in on the same enlightened vote. Perhaps the liberals (myself included) would be better off generating more widespread pressure from the bottom, so that their viewpoint is better represented among the city and state leaders reviewing the candidates (or even considering changing the process).
I'll be interested to see what more concrete proposals emerge and what chance they have. Perhaps it will improve things, perhaps not, but I certainly took little pride from the process and outcome of this last round of exercising my vote...
Post a Comment
<< Home