Electing judges injects an unseemly mix of money and politics into what should be a merit-based process | Editorial

When Pennsylvania voters go to the polls next month, chances are many will know little to nothing about the judicial candidates on the ballot.

That is just one reason why having an elected judiciary is a terrible way to run a court system that depends on independence, legal acumen, and impartiality.

Forcing jurists to campaign and play politics may help explain why Pennsylvania — and Philadelphia — have a long history of corrupt and incompetent judges.

Often, judicial candidates will receive campaign donations from attorneys, unions, and businesses who then may appear before them in court. To make matters worse, endorsed candidates are asked to make a “contribution” to the local Democratic or Republican Parties to help pay for their get-out-the-vote efforts.

The unseemly mix of politics and money undermines the idea that justice is blind.

Then there is the challenge of candidates who have no business being on the bench.

Consider the case of attorney Shawn K. Page, who is running for a seat on Municipal Court.

» READ MORE: Trump’s first 100 days: Chaos, mass firings, tariffs, and brute force | Editorial

Page has received a rare public reprimand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for mishandling a client’s case. He has also been the subject of a series of liens involving $200,000 in unpaid federal income taxes and penalties, according to a recent report by The Inquirer.

On top of that, the Philadelphia Bar Association, which evaluates judicial candidates, rated Page as “not recommended.” Yet, he may still win because he has played the political game and received the endorsement of the city’s Democratic ward leaders.

In a low-turnout primary election, that endorsement is often all that is needed. Winners of the Democratic primary on May 20 are practically guaranteed election in November because of the party’s overwhelming advantage in the number of registered voters in the city — Democrats outnumber Republicans in Philadelphia by a ratio of 7-1.

In the case of the city’s Municipal Court, there are three open seats and five candidates. But the bar association rated four of the candidates as “not recommended.”

That includes Page, Sherrie Cohen, Cortez Patton, and Qawi Abdul-Rahman.

The bar association only recommended one Municipal Court candidate, Amanda J. Davidson, a trial attorney at Fine, Staud & Levy, who graduated from Temple University’s Beasley School of Law and represents clients in cases involving workplace injuries, car accidents, and slip-and-falls. Davidson has racked up a slew of endorsements from unions, City Council members, and the Philadelphia Democratic Party.

For the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, there are nine open seats and 12 people running. The bar association recommended nine candidates, including former State Sen. Larry Farnese, who was acquitted of conspiracy and fraud charges in 2017.

Only one judicial candidate received the bar association’s rating of “highly recommended.” That was Stella Tsai, who has served on the Court of Common Pleas since 2016 and is running for the Commonwealth Court.

» READ MORE: Mayor Parker should beware of the unintended financial consequences of her housing plan | Editorial

The bar association’s rating is perhaps the best vetting system voters have to guide them on Election Day. A 36-member judicial commission issues the recommendations with the help of 100 volunteers who serve on teams that evaluate the candidates.

But it’s far from perfect. That’s why Pennsylvania would be better off moving to a merit system where judges are appointed rather than elected.

Merit systems can vary, but in general include a commission that consists of a diverse mix of judges, lawyers, and citizens who review applications and submit names for each vacancy to the governor.

Merit selection — which is supported by the nonpartisan nonprofit Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts — eliminates the role of money from an election. It also negates possible conflicts of interest where campaign donors appear before a judge. Merit selection also leads to choosing better-qualified judges and tends to promote greater diversity.

The merit system used in 14 states also has drawbacks, but studies show it is superior to partisan elections, where money and politics can send unqualified candidates to the bench.