TodayElected vs. appointed judges
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Add This
Article RatingThe debate over elected vs. appointed judges is coming up once more in the state Legislature in a fairly roundabout way.
Two state senators from Philadelphia, Vincent Fumo and Anthony Williams, want to do away with elections for Philadelphia judges in favor of gubernatorial appointment with Senate confirmation - the same way statewide judicial vacancies are filled now.
This is the second go-round for this proposal, according to the Associated Press. Fumo and Williams have made this proposal before, and they cite politics as the reason for making the change.
Williams said appointed judges would address a problem of diversity on the city's courts. He also said elections make it difficult to set criteria for competence. And then there's the standard argument made by advocates for appointed judges, that elections cause judges to be too heavily involved in politics.
The proposal to abolish elections for the statewide judiciary has been offered many times over the years. Essentially, the advantages haven't inspired the political will necessary to pass a constitutional amendment, which is the only way judicial elections can be abolished.
It can be argued that the political conditions are a little more intense in Philadelphia. It's a one-party town with an entrenched political scene that, with only some exceptions, can put who it wants where it wants pretty much on demand. The only wild card comes when the city's Democrats come into conflict with statewide Republicans, which has resulted in the city's parking authority and convention center board coming under state control.
So it's somewhat more likely that the city's judges are still being picked in the proverbial smoke-filled room, with elections being mostly a formality.
Still, there's not that much reason to believe that appointing city judges is going to be entirely free of politics. Consider if the Fumo/Williams bill were law today. With a former Philadelphia mayor in the governor's mansion, the results would be nearly the same except for the expense of holding an election.
And in a future time when someone who isn't a principal in Philadelphia politics has the power of appointment, the choices could easily be made to serve the purposes of politicians far outside the city. That may be attractive to some politicians, but it doesn't bring us any closer to a selection process based on qualifications.
The current rules for electing judges are a compromise between elections and appointments. Some judges are appointed to fill vacancies and run for election later. Those elected in an open race only have to run in retention elections after that.
Though the state Senate expects to take up the Fumo/Williams bill, we'd bet it will have tough sledding precisely because it will take a constitutional amendment to make the change. And that's an awful lot of trouble to go to over what, in the end, are the parochial concerns of a few politicians in a single jurisdiction.
