I work for Chaka Fattah, the front-runner in the top-of-the ticket Mayor’s race. This is the race most Philadelphians will be paying attention to in the 76 days left until the election.
However, there are over 20 people also running in this election cycle who want to be elected as judges. Judicial races may not seem to be related to the big-picture, symbolic, future-of-our-city stuff that comes up in the Mayor’s race, but the people we elect as judges maintain the infrastructure of our democracy and can do the most to actually effect concrete change in the lives of Philadelphians.
The problem is that most people don’t really know what judges do and what qualifies them for their job. So even though there will be 20 or more judicial candidates on the ballot in May, many voters will either ignore these races or pick candidates to vote for at random.
That’s why judges are the subject of this City Paper/Young Philly Politics partnership. But before I get into my questions, quickly, let’s have a look at which judicial races are in play:
Traffic Court Judges: Traffic court judges collect traffic ticket citation fines. This may seem like a minor role, but for folks of limited income, a bad ruling can break the bank and possibly limit a driver’s access to work if they are restricted from using their vehicle.
Municipal Court Judges: Every adult criminal arrest in Philadelphia goes through this court first. This court is divided into civil and criminal divisions. Municipal Court judges conduct preliminary hearings and also hear low-dollar, lower offense civil and criminal cases as well as all landlord-tenant disputes.
Municipal Court is "the peoples court." It is a place for people to get justice, cheaply and much faster than Common pleas Court, with lower court fees, and the understanding that most people will represent themselves. There are no jury trials here, so judges play a big role.
Common Pleas Judges: The Common Pleas court is the first major step on the way to the state Supreme Court. According to the First Judicial District of Philadelphia, there are ninety-three CP judges in Philadelphia who are currently assigned as follows: Trial Division, 67; Family Court Division, 20; and Orphans' Court Division, 3. The Trial division is further divided by criminal and civil cases. CP judges don’t run for an open judicial seat in a specific division, instead they are assigned to a division by a presiding judge.
The rulings made by Common Please judges affect everything from medical malpractice lawsuits to adoptions & custody to murder and robbery. These are the folks who can have the most dramatic impact on defendants, victims, or plaintiffs if unfair or wrong decisions are made.
Based on the scope of these roles, clearly judicial elections are important (there are a few statewide judicial races in play too, but this post is going to keep the focus on the candidates for local office).
Whether it’s approval of a second parent adoption (something gays like me have to worry about) or if it’s hearing a case trying to stop the opening of casinos or, a dispute with your landlord, or as the victim or accused in a criminal case (which encompasses quite a lot of Philadelphians as violence and crime continue to rise), judges play very key roles.
As such, is it smart to elect people to be judges? Does it make sense to elect judges to a court without being able to decide what division they will go to? How do progressive or reform oriented voters develop metrics to select the best judicial candidates? What parts of a judicial candidate’s background matter the most?
Solution-oriented comments will be compiled and crafted into an analysis to appear in next week’s City Paper.
Don't Elect Justices
It's very strange that we still elect judges at the local level. There are a number of problems with this approach. First, judicial candidates are forced to run under a partisan banner. It's bad for judicial independence for judges to be elected in the same manner as city council. Another issue is fund raising. Political campaigns require judges to raise considerable amounts of money. Special interest groups, from trail lawyers to major corporations, are funneling thousands of dollars into local judicial races with the hope of influencing future decisions. That's undoubtedly a bad thing.
Really, the only group that this situation helps is the political class. Some (not all) ward leaders make a ton of money charging candidates for their "services." Professional consultants also make a ton of money working on these down ballot races. I don't think the courts, the candidates, or the general public is served in anyway by this situation.
So what is the solution? Merit selection. Judges should be appointed, not elected. You can learn more about this issue at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts.
---
http://benwaxman.com
I’m wondering, who gets to
I’m wondering, who gets to be on this “independent board”? Are there any examples of these types of selection processes that yield better judges?
Good question
According to a study from a U Mich Law professor on the Frontline website:
There's a lot more there worth reading. I can't seem to find out if merit selection is applied in any state to local judicial seats though.
Mo Merit Selection
In 1940, Missouri became the first state to adopt merit selection of judges. The rest of the American Judicature Society website has information on every state's selection method. I know nothing about the AJS, but apparently they favor merit selection. I didn't dig too deep and don't know a break-down between elections, appointments, and merit selection.
EDIT: Here is "a set of tables that provide detailed information about merit selection provisions in states with 'merit selection' of judges, or appointment through nominating commissions." Other materials are available here.
Is anyone in favor of electing judges?
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
I'm in favor of electing judges
However, I do not like the way it is currently done. There should be certain criteria that you have to meet before actually becoming a candidate for judge.
For example, requiring candidates to practice for a certain number of years and requiring them to have a certain amount of jury trial under their belt.
How can a judge effectively sit over a trial when they have never stepped into a courtroom themselves?
There could be other criteria, however, I still believe they can be elected and still be qualified for the position.
Criteria
There are. Look at Pennsylvania Const., Art. V, § 12(a).
Can you tell me who you voted for in past elections? How did you evaluate them? If you relied on bar association evaluations or editorial board endorsements, what would be the big change from having a selection committee made up of some of the same people you relied on?
Nobody claims that no qualified person was ever elected. It is just a question of whether elections are better at selecting qualified people than other methods, such as merit selection.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Problem with judges
Experience is a major issue, but many of the judges are qualified. They just aren't qualified to be making rulings on certain areas of law.
Most of the lawyers here know law school doesn't really teach you the law. You learn the law in your practice. Unfortunately, because the law is so vast, attorneys can only specialize in one or two areas. The current judicial system, however, places people in areas of the law in which they've never practiced. A transactional attorney that has never seen a courtroom shouldn't be handling major criminal cases. Criminal attorneys don't have the knowledge base to practice family law. Of course, everyone can learn, but its a long, tortuous process. Frankly, I think its one of the reasons a lot of cases settle - you're literally at the mercy of someone who may or may not know what you're talking about.
solution?
what structure could be put in place to solve this?
My answer
I prefer elections over appointments or merit selection: you have a broader pool of people selecting who sits on the bench and it protects diversity. I would say we should work on recruting people with more diverse backgrounds - often public interest lawyers can't afford the fees and don't have the connections other lawyers have. Also, I think they should be able to run for specific sections of the court, like family court, criminal, civil, probate, etc...
That makes sense
But to clarify, right now we elect judges and they then get assigned to divisions. Are you saying that with an appointment process they would be appointed directly into a slot or a division?
Clarify
I don't support appointments, for many of the reasons posted here. I am assuming judges would be appointed but that the rest of the process would remain the same, i.e. that they would be assigned after the appointment. I think elections should be based on openings in specific courts. If there is an opening in criminal court, then judges should be allowed to run for those openings specifically.
Merit is better
J., I understand that theory, but I think practice is far, far from it. You never answered if you can recall ever voting for a particular person for a lower court.
I think it is far more likely to get a diverse judiciary through merit selection recommended through a bar association committee than it is through an election. In an election, a law firm partner would likely have far more money and moneyed connections, and be far more likely to be a white male, than anyone from the public interest sector.
Regardless, the voters in an election don't educate themselves enough to make the process work effectively. A selection committee is far more likely to make good selections of diverse qualified people than voters picking out Irish names or taking in a sample ballot from their ward leader.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Disagree
First - I did vote for a judge in the 2004 election, but you are right, I didn't really research the candidate as much as I wanted to. That was partially because I was out of state and voting through an absentee ballot at the time. But I agree, for the most part, people do not educate themselves about the judicial candidates. But then, many people don't educate themselves about politics in general (someone I met recently asked who Dick Cheney was).
It is part of the candidate's job to make themselves known to the electorate. From what I understand, here it's more about paying someone to get out the vote for them. I'm working with several associations for the next judicial election to take the issues out to the neighborhoods.
When I say that merit doesn't promote diversity, I'm basing it on the culture of the legal community. Many people in the legal profession think you are only "smart," and thus qualified to be a judge if you've worked at a big firm, and use that as a basis to distinguish candidates. But big firms are notorious for thier inability to hire and retain minority attorneys. This will inevitably effect who matriculates from the firm to the bench.
Not Here
While having worked at a large law firm may be the pedigree of a high percentage of Federal Judges, that is not the norm here in Philly. It is safe to say that few judges elected to Municipal Court or the Court of Common Pleas had associations with "big" firms. The majority of Philly lawyers that become M.C. or C.P. Judges worked originally as public defenders or D.A.s then went into private practice hustling criminal defense or personal injury cases and after years of doing favors for the political machine of their choice threw their hats into the ring. There is another large percentage of Philly lawyers that become judges due to the independent wealth of their spouses.
democratic input has its drawbacks too...
you also get people voting for a name that they recognize from a local restaurant, even if that person is considered unqualified by the Bar Association. it's tough to say that these races are doing what we'd like them to do, if people vote based on ballot position or apparent ethnicity, rather than by knowing anything about the candidates...
acm
Appointment / Direct Election Compromise
Many good points have been made, regarding our system of electing judges in Pennsylvania. We have many qualified jurist that somehow managed to make it through the system and others that are on the bench merely by the luck of ballot position, the fact that they were able to "hire" the right "consultants" or were able to "contribute" the most money to the party or ward leaders. On several occasions individuals have been elected to serve in courts that they have never practiced before. This is often handled by the administrative judges assigning that new judge to a court room that has a subject matter that will allow the judge to learn the ropes before gaining an assignment of real consequence.
The question for us is whether or not our perceived system of robes going to the highest bidder is any less democratic or effective than executive appointments. It is worth debating.
While I think the overall quality of judges would be improved through an appointment process, I also strongly believe that the public must have a direct say in the election of the judges or the selection of the appointing commission.
A compromise that could answer the needs of improving the quality of our trial and appellate court judges while not eliminating the right of the people to participate in the selection of the judicial branch would be a variation of the Missouri Bar Plan. The voters of Missouri, in reaction to the political corruption and influence of the Pendergast machine, amended the state constitution so that 1) judicial candidates would be screened and recommended by a panel appointed by the governor. 2) When vacancies occur the governor selects candidates recommended by the panel and 3) after a year of service on the bench the judges face the public by means of a non-partisan retention vote.
We could amend our constitution and establish an appointed panel comprised of representatives of diverse bar associations. Members of the panel could be appointed by the governor, and the judiciary committees of the state senate and general assembly. The panel would recruit and screen applicants for judicial vacancies. We could then have a fixed number (say 3) of the most qualified applicants face the voters in non-partisan elections. These elected judges would then be subject to retention votes in the same manner that they are currently. I like it, what do you think?
Ladies and Gentlemen
I think we have a winner.
In particular, I think that the idea of retention votes is key.
I agree completely...
I think the present system is anachronistic and feeds into both the perception and reality of pay to play and biased judges. Judges are supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law...blind justice. Making them beholden to supporters, fund raisers and constituents must affect them.
I wonder however, who would serve on the board of independent citizens? I wouldn't want random people on there, it would just be a mini election. We couldn't have active lawyers on there, there would be an obvious conflict of interest. I would say, maybe a panel of retired judges and lawyers...people without an active interest in the rulings of judges.
What about nonpartisan
What about nonpartisan elections? The people would still get to vote, but the party couldn't shut anyone out of a ballot or tank their chances in the primary. And judges could plausibly say that they are acting in the name of the law, not party politics.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
I have no problem with that.
I have no problem with that. However, other people may. People may want to know what point of view you're coming from before they elect you. In reality, Republicans and Democrats usually lean certain ways on issues.
That's why we fight so hard for left-leaning or right-leaning Supreme Court Justices. It really does matter.
Do We Need Parties To Know What Someone Thinks?
I'm sure there are other ways that people can indicate their point of view besides party affiliation. This isn't to say that candidates couldn't announce their party allegiance in their campaigns. It just means that they wouldn't need the endorsement of primary voters in the party.
And we do fight for left-leaning and right-leaning Supreme Court Justices, but a) we're most interested in the way their politics could directly affect their future decisions about the law and b) we're talking about traffic court, not the Supreme Court.
And in answer to Aardhart below -- more people vote in general elections than primaries, and the party machine exercises more control over the diehards than in a general election. I also think a longer voting season would give voters more time to get informed. Wouldn't it be great if we had until November to choose between all of the candidates for mayor, and if more Philadelphians had a chance to vote for the eventual winner?
(Cue all campaign workers passing over from the prospect of six more months of stress.)
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
sure, party affiliation might indicate something
...but the last time around, around half of the candidates had qualifed on *both* ballots -- I'm not sure if that was intended to indicate their nonpartisanship or just to help improve their chances of ending up in office. still, weird.
No difference
I don't see how nonpartisan elections would reduce or change machine power. The machine is active in general elections, not just primaries. It also doesn't change the fact that almost no one knows anything about anyone who is running. Can anyone here name anyone they ever voted for Municipal Court Judge? If it wasn't your parent or relative, I highly doubt it. Under nonpartisan elections, you will still have candidates relying on ward leaders to hopefully ensure their elections.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
I can name all of the Judges
I can name all of the Judges I voted for in 2005, but I won't. That's a personal decision. However, I will say that I knew their records, I knew who they were, and I analyzed whether I thought they would be good judges. I didn't need a ward leader to tell me. I didn't need the bar association to tell me. And just because the bar association doesn't recommend someone doesn't mean they won't be a good judge. It just means that they weren't active in the bar association.
Merit Selection got us Clarence Thomas
You guys remember Clarence Thomas, don't you? He's probably one of the most unqualified Supreme Court Justices I've seen.
What's my point? Appointing judges is not the same as merit selection. You could easily appoint the same unqualified judges that are now elected. The only difference is that there will be different power-brokers chosing them.
The system in which we choose our judge's is broken. It needs to be fixed. However, I do not think so-called "merit selection" (or appointments) is the answer.
Also, remember, the
Also, remember, the appointment system has flaws too. For instance, we can't seem to get enough judges on the federal bench. Not because lawyers do not want to be Federal Judges, but because politics gets in the way. We have too many vacanties on the federal courts, which slows the system down immensely.
Essentially, the same type of people will be chosen--connected people.
Gaetano Has A Point
We don't want a bench full of connected people. With elections, everyday people can dream of being judges, work hard, and actually make it happen.
That's not true with appointments. You could be the best lawyer you can be, and it doesn't mean anything if you aren't connected.
Connections or Money
Do you think that a person without connections is more likely to be elected than appointed? Maybe, but only with enough money.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Summing up and moving the conversation on...
So some folks like Ben and Aardhart have said that merit selection is definitely the way to go. Others, like Esquite, want to keep on electing judges but establish some baseline criteria to become one. Or, elections could continue, but be non-partisan as Short Shcrift suggests.
Among merit selection supporters, there’s a divide. Some have suggested that an appointed board is no different than relying on the Bar Association or the Inquirer Editorial board to make a decision, whereas others, like Charlie and Gaetano see an independent review board as potential source of problems. Gaetano has even said that an independent board could ultimately just replicate the problems of our current system on a smaller scale.
Any more thoughts on appointments vs. elections? Does anyone think that party-based judicial elections could be reformed to effectively elect judges? I mean how many of the problems you guys are describing could be solved if voters simply had more information about the candidates?
Which brings me to my next question, what qualities make a good judge? Does it depend on the court? For CP, what does it mean that elected judges are “assigned” to divisions? Do a judge’s skills always match the division they get placed in? Are women and men assigned to divisions evenly and fairly?
Also, remember we're talking about local courts
I read through the link Aardhardt provided and I noticed that even in states where there is merit selection, rather than election of judges, half of those states apply merit selection to the higher courts and still elect judges to the equivalent of our traffic court and municipal court.
Any thoughts on why?
Lower courts
Are you sure it's half? It seems that most that use merit selection use it throughout the system. In any case, that means half the states apply merit selection to the lower courts as well.
It might have been the result of a compromise rather than a reasoned design. The notorious Indiana machine ward leaders may have been powerful enough to block reform to their little racket of electing local court judges.
Or it may have been a decision of importance. Regardless of how bad and unfair a trial judge is, theoretically all their mistakes can be corrected on appeal. Just ignore the years and money this could take, and you can call it justice. Trial judge also generally do not set precedent that binds courts throughout the state.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
That's "Schrift." As in German for "Writing." Yes, I am a dork.
Um, just to clarify -- I don't support merit-based selection. And I don't remember saying anything about a review board.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
sorry
woops. fixed.
Since no one else has taken this up...
Hmm, good question, Ray. I'm not sure. What qualities do you think make for a good judge?
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Elect Judges
If you think appointed judges are a good thing then you should spend time in Federal Court or before Worker’s Comp Judges. The fact that you think judges should be appointed points to a certain elitism that thinks the elites can choose better than the people.
Common Pleas Court has judges like Lisa Rau and Pat McInerny, both Plaintiff civil rights/employment attorneys and Ben Lerner, former Public Defender of Philadelphia. There are no such persons on the Federal Bench. Ask anyone who worked to keep MCP open if they think they would have had as fair a hearing in Federal Court.
The recent appointments to the Workers Comp bench lately have been so anti worker that it would make you sick.
One of the problems with the US Supreme Court is that, now that O’Conner has left, there are no judges that have been forged by the political process. They have no sense of the real world. As such they do not see the unequal power in America. Boss/worker, state/individual, etc. The Court’s rulings reflect this.
When a Judge goes through the political system he learns the City, its neighborhoods and the concerns of its citizens. He also learns by being at the mercy of others that someday people will appear before him/her being at their mercy. It is not a bad lesson for a judge to learn.
I would rather be ruled by the first 200 Names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard.
Lou Agre, proud Democratic Ward Leader of the 21st Ward. Big “D” and little “d” Democrat
Right On, Lou!
I couldn't agree more.
The man knows of what he speaks.
As a wounded veteran of judicial races I have been tempted to jump on the merit selection wagon but I am convinced it is fool's gold. It doesn't take money or influence out of the process it just makes it less transparent.
I would say more about Lou's post but it would probably be seen as just me sucking up to a ward leader. (Can I get you some coffee, Lou? Shine you shoes? ;-)
One disagreement, however. The first 200 names of the phone book would never work. Who wants to be ruled by the Adams Family. It would have to be a random selection for me to sign on.
Repeat (moving the conversation on)
Does anyone think that party-based judicial elections could be reformed to effectively elect judges? I mean how many of the problems you guys are describing could be solved if voters simply had more information about the candidates?
Which brings me to my next question, what qualities make a good judge? Does it depend on the court? For CP, what does it mean that elected judges are “assigned” to divisions? Do a judge’s skills always match the division they get placed in? Are women and men assigned to divisions evenly and fairly?
Answer to #1
The question then is (as always) how do you engineer giving the voters more information? And how do you get that information to more voters?
One of the things that nonpartisan election has going for it -- and I'm not married to the idea, I was just surprised that it hadn't been mentioned -- is that with a longer election season, and more voters at the polls, it seems that more voters would have a better chance to be informed. And as has been mentioned, a lot of these candidates already run on both tickets.
Alternatively, nominees could still run under party flags, but skip the winnowing of the primaries. (I have no idea how this would work.)
Or we could have public financing and airtime for judicial elections. Hey...
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
fusion voting
I don't think this has been mentioned before, but Philadelphia traffic, municipal and all CP judges statewide can run on as many party tickets as they are nominated to. Isn't this functionally non-partisan voting?
It's Been Mentioned; and No, Not really
Nominees still need the support of the ward leaders to get through the primary. And in a heavily Democratic city, if you can only get on the Republican slate, or if you get on the primary ballot but don't get your name on the little pamphlets the ward bosses hand out, or any of the other party advertising, you have a good chance of not getting elected. This is the problem we started with.
Lastly, judges shouldn't be beholden to either the Democrats or the Republicans, and especially not particular Democrats or Republicans. This is part of the reason why the city can't police its own political corruption -- the FBI has to do it (which poses its own problems).
Lessons for Judges
Lou Agre writes:
How shall I put this?... Ok, I've got it.
It appears that many judges haven't learned the "right" lesson from this experience. What they've learned from being at the mercy of others is that they will be at the mercy of that person and their allies again and again unless the right deference is paid.
Or, possibly, that the way to avoid being at someone's mercy is to pay them to help you. Even if the payment is 100% legit. None of these is the proper behavior for a judge.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
I hope everyone here understands how judges are elected
in Philadelphia, who they pay off, how much money it costs and the complete absence of competence as a factor in who gets elected. Both the DN and Inky have done stories over the years exposing this. The system is so rotten and foul even the party chairmen want merit selection.
Bob Brady wants merit selection?
Bob Brady wants merit selection?
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Aardhart asks, "Bob Brady wants merit selection?"
Yes, he does. Although perhaps not for the same reasons as the goo-goos.
It's time to change the way we choose judges
As a Dem. committee person for over two decades, I’ve had ample opportunity to watch the unseemly scramble for judicial slots.
Granted there will be political considerations involved in any “merit” selection process, and money will no doubt play some role. Those who have contributed to the Governor (or whatever elected official would appoint members to the merit selection panel) will probably have an edge.
But the role of money would be reduced under an appointive rather than elective system. Under the current system of electing judges, judicial candidates must raise large amounts of money –- much of it from trial lawyers who may at some point appear before them. Many candidates who have considerable personal money, just dip into their bank accounts to fund a race.
This means that the politically unconnected lawyers and those of modest means have little chance--thus reducing the talent pool from which judges are chosen.
I know some very talented lawyers who would make excellent judges who will not participate in the ugly process of raising ridiculous amounts of money to pay the fees demanded by City Committee to get on the official Democratic ballot and then the fees demanded by individual ward leaders.
As many judicial candidates have learned, just getting City Committee endorsement is not enough as individual ward leaders and committee people will cut judicial candidates if they don’t get their cut.
I realize that we have somehow managed to get some outstanding candidates under the current system of electing judges. Last night I attended a panel discussion, "A Conversation with Women in the Judiciary from the Court of Common Pleas to the State Supreme Court" at the Community College of Philadelphia and heard inspirational presentations from: Judge Rochelle S. Friedman; Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes; Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson; Judge Teresa M. Sarmina; Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner
So good candidates sometimes make it under the current system, but we have also elected judges with very weak résumés and even elected a judge with a prior felony conviction.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor
Electing Judges
Karen wrote:
"This means that the politically unconnected lawyers and those of modest means have little chance-"
Do you think this will change under appointed judges? In NJ it is said to become a Federal Judge you have to raise $1 million for the party. This is so called "merit" selection.
"Merit" selection, term limitsand other so-called good government ideas merely boil down to the fact that some people do not trust the people to decide.
What Qualifies You for being a Judge: Finding the Hilton
Lou,
Your defense basically boils down to "eh, the status quo is great."
First, lets not BS here: This is not "being ruled by the first 200 people in the phone book." This is judges who happen to curry favor with the party, who sit with an envelope of cash at the Airport Hilton, hoping not to be spurned. This is about people paying Carol Campbell, the person you are chairing the re-election committee of, thousands of dollars for a "consulting fee" to get themselves on the ballot. What does any of this have to do with being a good judge? Absolutely nothing. And, you know that. But it does line Campbell's pockets; so at least something positive comes out of it.
Second, do you think the system works well now? Do you think the people of this City are best served by this process?
Third, you are basically couching the anti-merit selection thing as being wrapped up in a quasi populist thing. Those lawyers from Ballard, etc, who ware aiming to be federal judges? They don't want to be municipal court judges. It is a huge paycut, and it is not like that is big stepping stone to the federal bench. So, I think roughly the same candidates now will still be candidates, except that you will add additional qualified people who do not want subject themselves to the gross process that currently exists.
Fourth, the fact that a small amount of public interest practitioners exist on the Court of Common Pleas? Yes, a small amount of them exist on the Court. However, when did a higher percentage of public interest types make it onto the Court? With the way the system is now, or, WHEN BOB CASEY APPOINTED THEM because of a scandal involving the roofer's union in the 80's?
Answer: when Casey appointed them.
It is reasonable to argue for election of judges. But arguing for this way of doing it?
Electing judges
I do not see a problem with minimum requirements for judges then an election. In our Ward judicial candidates meet with lawyers and other concerned committee people to gain the endorsement. One of the factors that is considered is the City Committee endorsement.
As part of an organization, City Committee, I am very cognizant of the fact that for an organization to work effectively you need discipline. That is why the City Committee endorsement is an important factor in endorsements.
Finally there are very few of those Casey appointments left on CP court. In any event there are more public interest lawyers on CP cvourt, where judges are elected, than on Federal Court, where they are appointed.
Apples and Oranges
Yes, federally, few public interest lawyers get on the Court. But, since extremely few get on the Philly Courts the way we are doing it, that is not really a justification. We are not the feds, and a merit process could provide for all kinds of safeguards. We are not asking for George Bush to appoint the judges, right?
But, lets say I agree with you that some sort of elections are not awful. You didn't really address that even if that general principle is OK- the way we do things here does not work, unless we are just trying to figure out how to help Carol Campbell pay her mortgage- then the process is wonderful.
We used to
appoint judges in the Commonwealth until that process was considered to "crooked." Similarly, the AG of Pennsylvania used to be appointed and then we switched to direct elections. As a result, no democrat has been elected to the AG post since.
Both elections and merit selection have their pros and cons. The problem from a progressive point of view is that merit selection places the selection process into the hands of a few elites whom we believe are better informed to make the decision than the general population. That may be true as a general proposition, but the rubber hits the road when we have to decide who selects the selectors.
I am not here to defend the current system, which amounts to legalized extortion from the judicial candidates. I think perhaps the best solution is a hybrid system whereby a committee selects and vets candidates who are then put on the ballot and voted upon by the people. The committee would select more candidates then there are openings so the election wouldn't simply be a confirmation. Candidates could spend their resources on direct communication with the voters as opposed to paying ward leaders for "help" when too often the "help" never materializes, despite the candidates payments.
The problem with any elective system is getting the voters to care. But, then again, this is a problem for all elected officials. All those in favor of merit selection make one fatal assumption, namely that the people who are selected (appointed) will be well qualified, apolitical, and thoughtful. There is no appointive system that can ensure that.
Can someone explain
Why a system - such as described by Seth Williams - where a committee selected judges that were then subject to retention votes wouldn't be a best of both worlds? If you wouldn't be able to trust to the public to make an informed opinion in retention votes, then you can't trust them to make informed decisions now either.
Such a system would significantly reduce the problems that exist with the current electoral system (whereby candidates need to raise large sums to be viable), but still ensure that the public has a voice.
As you say, the selection of the committees is where the rubber meets the road - but it seems to me that it would certainly be possible ensure that criteria used to determine who would be on the committee could be designed to help ensure that it would include representatives of spectrum of stakeholders/communities.
I have the explanation
Oh wait. No, no explanation. The system he suggested would work a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
Federal Appointments & Money
Take a look at the following for a discussion of how money effects federal appointments
http://www.muckraker.org/content/investigations/Money%20Trails_District%...
The Problem is the Same
The problem with the system Seth Williams proposes is the same as other forms of appointment, namely who appoints. Although, with only 1 year to serve before election, it certainly is better than a 10 year or lifetime appointment. The problem arises when a person is not retained, can they be reappointed. Plus retention elections aren't really a progressive answer. It is an election in name only. A person doesn't run against someone else, they run against themselves. In the history of judicial rentention elections in PA only Justice Nigro wasn't retained statewide and I believe only 1 sitting CP judge wasn't retained. Its hard for your opponents to campaign for voting "no" instead of for a different candidate.
The criteria for selecting the selectors could be designed to ensure good members, but it wouldn't take politics out of the mix.
The problem arises when a
Since we're designing out own system here - let's say no, they can't be reappointed.
As a progressive, I say "great." Let them run on their record. If someone fails to perform well, let "progressive" groups rally votes to reject their retention. If they can make a case for why they deserve retention, let them do so. Why is pitting one candidate against another more "progressive" than evaluating candidates based on their own record?
Agreed. There would be the potential for politics in the selection process, and there would still be politics in teh retention vote process. But the system is very "political" now, and such a system, it seems to me, would reduce the negative aspects of the politics involved.
You're right, the problem with such a system is "who appoints." But steps could be taken to mitigate that problem - and the aspect of retention votes would negate the other complaint about appointments in that ultimately, voters would be making the decisions.
All True
but you missed my last point, which is the answer to why retention elections are neither progressive nor elections: very few people fail to be retained. When voters are asked to vote yes or no on a candidate, they either don't vote at all or vote all yes or all no. This is not really an election.
Good Point
Frank, you make a good point. The judicial selection method I suggested is not perfect. After reading the discussion about my proposal I think it was not interpreted exactly as I intended. My suggestion is a variation of the Missouri Bar plan. I propose the appointment of a diverse board of "stakeholders" to serve on the Judicial Election Commission. Three members of the commission would be appointed by the governor, three by the judiciary committee of the State Senate and three by the judiciary committee of the State House. The Commission would recruit, interview, and screen applicants. Attorneys could nominate themselves or could be nominated by clients or members of the community. When vacancies occur the commission would forward 3 candidates for every vacancy (I like the number 3) the public would then select one of the three by means of a non-partisan election. The judges would then stand for retention votes in the same cycles as they do now.
Since we are just making things up here, I would also make the filling of the vacancies more specific. Instead of elections for 11 seats on the Court of Common Pleas and 3 on Municipal Court, or whatever the number of openings in any given year. The new method would have the Commission forwarding the candidates for specific subect matter jursidiction on those courts. Hopefully, this would provide us with judges for criminal court that have experience in criminal court and judges for family court that have been to 1801 Vine or 34 S. 11th Street prior to their swearing in ceremonies. So, if there were 11 C.P. seats, with 6 civil and 5 criminal the Commission would screen and offer candidates deemed "qualified" for the specific vacancies.
The point of who picks the board and this possibly being nothing more than the elites circumventing the people is legitimate. I think that having elected officials that are directly accountable to the public appointing the commission members should help alleviate some of those concerns, and having the public make the ultimate decision safeguards a democratically elected and independent judiciary.
My process could get unwieldly (sp?) in Philadelphia county as opposed to say Centre county due to the total number of vacancies. So, I am open to friendly ammendments.
Does that clear it up any Frank?
Who are you voting for Seth?
Sorry to be a broken record, but I was hoping this thread could help voters in this election as well as identify systemic reforms.
So who are you voting for in May, or what kind of judge candidates will you vote for? What qualities make a good judge?
EXPERIENCE
When it comes to judicial elections I look for experience. I want to know what these candidates have done professionally and what organizations they have been active members of. I want to see what footprints they have left during their careers.
Unlike most voters, I have had the privilege of working in the legal system. I have seen many of the candidates at work and have made judgements based on their ability, integrity, and decision making. I am predisposed to not vote for a candidate that I have never seen before or even heard of. I know this cant be the same standard for everyone. So, I would say to examine their work history in the same way you would an applicant for a job.
Tom Martin for CP
I'm voting for Tom Martin for CP. The guy has a tremendous amount of experience and has represented plaintiffs and defendants, corporations and individuals. He is an example of a lawyer who has worked hard and now wants to actually serve the public.
He has run a couple times before and lost, mostly because I think the ward leaders who said they would support him intentionally did not because they got paid more by others, eventhough Tom was endorsed by the Democratic Party.
Modified, not misinterpreted
But I should have been more clear. My personal preference would be to have the judges selected by a committee and then subjected to retention votes - yet a different modification of the Missori system than the one you recommended above (where voters select from a roster screened by a committee).
But as I read your recommendation a second time, I do agree that it certainly would put people who are concerned about the elitism of a selection process more at ease - so in that sense it might be better.
Electing judges redux
On the issue of asking for money from judges.
I do ask for money from candidates and I pay people to work on election day. People take a day off from work, have to pay day care, buy their election board lunch, and work outside from 7am to 8pm. They should get something for their effort. I can state that nothing I received from a candidate ever went into my pocket or was used for anything but Ward business (i.e. mailings, hall rental, kids to work on election day, refereshments and a holiday party for my committee people and neighborhood and city activists).
If candidares do not want to pay for the help, then don't. I charge enough to cover expenses and have never cut anyone I said I would put on the ballot.
What I would like to see is more discipline in enforcing the City Committee ballot.
What I would like to see is
Could you please tell us what qualifications the City uses to evaluate its nominees?
The Power Dynamic of Landlord Tenant Court
Most people don't think about Municipal Court as important as the Court of Common Pleas. But, in civil matters, Municipal Court is the only "justice" most poor people in Philly will ever get. So, as someone who has watched proceedings in both municipal court and landlord-tenant court, I think this might be helpful in considering selecting appropriate judges:
The first thing to know is that, for example, in landlord-tenant court, 1) just about every single claim is for eviction. At first glance, that makes sense. But, when you think about it, there are laws that govern what landlords must provide, and you know there are many who are not doing so. Yet, basically no tenants use the law and LT court to their advantage. So, landlord-tenant court, which in theory can be used to pursue quality housing, is basically eviction Court; nothing less, nothing more.
Second, while basically every tenant is representing themselves (its called pro-se), many landlords have attorneys. There is a clear difference in the power dynamic- made only greater by the fact that the attorneys sit in the first couple rows of the courtroom, while non lawyers, must sit in the rest of the seats. Maybe that would make sense if everyone had a lawyer, but, when only landlords have lawyers, it contributes even more to an uneven power dynamic.
Third, the power dynamic has even a greater chance for a problem, because before the judge even gets out there, a judicial administrator runs through the cases, and tries to clear as many as possible (a lot of people are no shows). The guy I watched was incredibly rude to people (most of whom, again, have zero idea of their rights, and were basically at his mercy. He scared people away who clearly should have stayed and fought. He also tried to force as many people as possible into mediation. When that happens the landlord (or usually, their lawyer) and the tenant go into a side room with a mediator, and for the most part, they return with an agreement. But, again, you have a person who doesnt know their rights, and they are forced into mediation where they are basically outmatched. And this all happens behind closed doors. Are you confident they are getting "justice"? I am not.
So, after mediation, no shows, and the clerk clearing as many cases as possible, the judge comes out. (When I watched, out of 40 cases listed, three made it to the judge.)
So, now, we get to this point. But again, the power dynamic is skewed- because lawyer or not, because like I said- we are basically in eviction court. People do not know their rights. They don't know landlords have responsibilities under the law.
What is my point in this? Well, first of all, the municipal court process must be changed (I could go into more stories about the Court if interested). It would be helpful if people about to be evicted had attorneys... but that is a whole other story. But, most importantly, we need people elected to municipal court who not only know the law, but, who have experience with disenfranchised people and can in effect help them steer through the process and their rights. A Municipal Court judge can not simply be a neutral arbiter of justice. They, in fact, must help poor people actually understand what their rights are- especially if there is no right to be represented.
Public Interest Lawyers
OK, well, I guess I mine as well just say it: We need a system that gets us more public interest lawyers on the Court. Specifically, it would be really freaking helpful if in a system where many of the problems and cases have to do with poverty, if we had judges who had experience dealing with poor clients. It is a fallacy that we need judges to close their eyes, listen to the arguments of two sides, and make a decision. In a City with such high poverty, and with so many people unrepresented (I am really talking civil matters here), a judge must do a lot more, and actively help people understand their rights under the law.
Philly is generally known to have one of the strongest and most innovative public interest law communities in the Country. But virtually none of these lawyers go onto the bench. Much of it, I suspect, is because they don't have the money (they take jobs at approximately one-third to one-quarter of the starting salary of many of their classmates) or the stomach to go through the process.
But make no mistake- we would be much better off if we had more public interest members of the bar who were judges.
Does anyone else have anything to add?
Dan's point above is interesting.
Moreover, the response to this post have so far read as if there was no interest or awareness in the judicial election we are in the midst of now. Who are people supporting for judge, and more importantly, why? What makes someone a good judge (Dan has answered this, but what do others say?)
Public interest lawyers
Dan gets to heart to the matter: how does the current system restrict the talent pool?
Public interest lawyers are usually not among those elected. I know of only one public interest lawyer elected to Ct. of Common Pleas and I believe she had access to some personal money. At very least, she had spouse with a job.
It is extraordinarily difficult for public interest lawyers (especially if they do not come from affluent families or have a spouse with a good job) to raise the funds necessary.
Dan did a good job of explaining why we need that perspective on the bench.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor
I have pondered on this
I have pondered on this question for a long time. I have looked at the Federal system compared to ours and I do not think appointment is as desirable for three reasons.
First, there is a reason for Federal Court appointment that stems from the nature of our General and limited Government. To some extent, electing judges on a Federal level makes no sense and subjects judges to being too influenced by public opinion. Remember, the role of a judge is not like that of a legislature. Judges should not be making policy to the extent our legislature does. If they did, it would be severe encroachment and undemocratic.
Second, looking at the federal courts, they are a disaster in terms of vacancy because the courts have, to some extent, been corrupted by Congress and the executive. Emininetly qualified jurists are prevented from sitting due to disagreements (important disagreements, of course, but still disagreements), while the federal courts grow increasingly inefficient. Honestly, I do not agree with our Chief Justice Roberts related to the scope of constitutional rights in particular areas, but he is a very well qualified candidate. And, further, the American Supreme Court, throughout time has not always had consensus. The question is, is disagreement a reason to keep someone from the bench. I'm not sure--neither is any legal scholar. But, it happens. The problem is, there are too many people interested in overturning precedent. While overturning the allowance of segregation was a great thing that many rejoiced, I'm sure we can all find areas where overturning precedent is not something we like. I know I can,
Third, state judges must be close to the people. It is the nature of the states and their collective history that they be as close as possible to their citizens. I would see taking the election of judges away as a process that could hurt that. It is needed--and needed sorely.
So, in view of the above, I would have to say that not electing judges on the state and county level does not make much sense to me. Now, that does not mean the process cannot improve. It sure can. But, honestly, the problem is not so much the party, but an uneducated and indifferent populace who no more care about electing judges than they do about committee-folk. Based on the nature of our republic, oftentimes judges affect the lives of people more than legislators. When people need redress, they often go to court. Just look at the casino situation--the state legislators (the dogs they are) who voted for this thing have to wait 2 years for voter retribution--when people may forget!!!! I would say the issues we have in electing the judiciary in Philadelphia are symptomatic of an uninvolved and disinterested populace.
Ultimately, I do not think you can blame ward leaders for pushing candidates--the environment is present, but not necessary created by them. I think there has been extreme neglect on the parts of the bar, the populace and our leaders to select judges wisely. What needs to happen is not just structural to the party or judicial election process, but educational. If we want an involved electorate, we must make civics classes mandatory in all schools from first through 12th grade. Our civic conversation has to be different too. Politicians in Philadelphia should be am exemplar to their constituents, showing that an engaged process is necessary. Philadelphia leaders should not be disgracing office with corruption, both by affirmative action and neglect. It dissuades participation. In addition, if we want better judges, we have to look to organizations like the PA Bar Association and Philly Bar to do more than merely recommend, but take a step in public education.
At the end of the day, I'd rather have my state judges selected by real people rather than commissions. I'd rather not inject someone else's notion of merit into who is a judge. And last, I do not want to give the Governor (who hardly ever comes from Philly save Rendell) the perogative to appoint judges in Philadelphia.
yea, but who are you voting for Gateano?
I have no doubt that there are people reading this blog and eventually a CP article who are going to think the system is broken and STILL not know who to vote for.
Who are you voting for Gaetano (and others)? And why?
Well, an interesting way to
Well, an interesting way to brush aside my long considered response to your general question.
With about two months to the primary, I think you're a bit premature in asking. Some have impressed me more than others, but I'm not in a position to say who and how many I'm going to cast my ballot for.
What I am going to look for--a complete record of integrity and civility in the practice is most important. Second, I'm going to look at the places the person practiced. Third, I'm going to see the public interest and pro bono work they have done. Last, I'm not going to vote to just vote. If I get X many, that does not mean I will vote for X. If I deem someone unqualified, I'm not going to give them or someone else I do not want to vote for a notch just because.
I'm confused
Leaving the discussion of the federal court aside (I think it's best we not go there), I'd ask you to speak not to a generic "selection" process, but to the kind of process Seth Williams outlined - with accompanying retention votes.
You say that the determination of state judges needs to be close to the people, the problem is with the "uneducated and indifferent populace," and the problem isn't with the ward leaders system per se.
First, why should the decision be closer to the people if you think that they are uneducated and indifferent? It seems to me that reducing the scope of educational "curriculum" needed to help voters evauate candidates would be a good way to deal with an uneducated and indifferent populace. Appointing judges and then having retention votes would ensure - at least to the extent that it happens now - that the judges are "close to the people." But providing voters with a track record against which judges could be evaluated certainly seems like a less complicated educational task than trying to show voters how a judge would act under hypothetical situations based on what they've said an their track record in indirectly related areas.
You suggest that a generic civics education is the problem. I would disagree, I think the problem is that even if people were inclined to be interested and armed with such an educational background, they have no valid way to evaluate the candidates. As it stands now, they rely on the Party to educate them about the specifics.
Let me ask you - do you think in the ward system that exists, the focus is really on educating voters? Or, to the contrary, isn't the focus that exists really on having a "selection" process take place - with party leaders doing the selection - and then what essentially amounts as an endorsement of that selection process in the form of an election?
Again, I don't think some generic or Party generated educational process is what's needed. If ward leaders looked to their role to be educators, to help voters make an informed decision, then the problems would be reduced. But given the way the system is set up, I think it's unlikely that they will view their role in such a way on a widespread basis. So, given that I don't think likely reform of the ward system to make it work better as an educational institution, why not give the educational role to others?
I'd like to see the role of "educator" taken out of the hands of the political machine - and put into the hands of interest groups who have one reason or another to see judges pass a retention vote. Let them make lay out the facts for voters.
DEII, I don't think you read
DEII, I don't think you read my entire post.
But, for the sake of a completely anticipated exercise (I knew you would do this), I will respond to a few points.
First, see my comments re the bar associations.
Second, I didn't discuss a party education process. See point "First."
Third, related to civics education, I think making people more inclined to vote helps. Then, hopefully, our great Bar organizations will work with us in educating the public.
Last, proponents of an appointment/retention system must realize it is worthless in Philadelphia. Related to the retention of judges, in the last 50 years only one judge has NOT been retained. All that system would do is take the power out of the hands of voters entirely as retention ballots = retention, plain and simple. Also, who does the appointing? Right now, if you get the signatures, you are at least able to be considered. If appointments were the norm, I think we would see good people not be considered at all.
We have a very democratic system. I'd rather make it so people gain the knowledge and passion to make these decisions. Taking something out of their hands entirely is not okay with me, especially where we have structures in place like public education and bar associations that can assist.
Yeah
Your comments about the bar association stood out more after the second time I read your post - which I admit I did AFTER hitting the post button. Sorry.
As to the comments that a retention vote would be useless: It seems that assumption is based on what takes place now - where the Party has such a vested interest in controlling the whole process. How are voters informed about retention votes now ? What incentive does a civic association have to weigh in on a retention vote since the Party is so locked in to the process?
Would that change if the Party was somewhat distanced from the whole process? The Party wouldn't be running their candidate - they'd be asking voters to make a decision on a candidate that may or may not reflect their specific political orientation in all aspects.
Agreed, the system would be perfect. It is unrealistic to think that retention votes on judges would be equal to "citizen empowerment." But to what extent does the current process reflect citizen empowerment? We need to make progress in a relative way. What is the most likely way that might happen?
It's okay. I happens to me
It's okay. I happens to me sometimes too.
Unfortunately, I think many of our problems are self imposed. It is proven that more educated voters are more independent voters. By independent, I do not mean voters who are not democracts, but voters who are more likely to not go by the party ballot.
While much of that work is related to educational achievement, I'd like to see Philadelphia be at the cutting edge of proving that wrong--that if taught or shown an interest in civics, people do participate more. This is, by admission, a long run strategy.
In the short term, I think the best results would come from the Bar associations taking the time to educate people about (1) what judges do; (2) why we elect them; and (3) providing an easy forum for citizens to access information and/or talk with candidates.
Related to retention, yes, it is based on what we have now. But, without fundamental changes in the electorate, I can't anticipate any change in the party's involvement on retention votes. In addition, the massives campaigns to oust someone already seated would be, perhaps, even more difficult than beating an incumbent.
Related to detention: well,
Related to detention: well, since we're creating our own system, there could be campaign restrictions to "level the playing field," and there could be a system put into place for an official review of the judges - with requirements placed upon that review process that would ensure the opportunity for an active role on the part of civic organizations.
I think that if you want to increase civic participation, there need to be more ways that civic participation clearly makes a difference to people.
This I have issue with--an
This I have issue with--an official review of judges. I think such reviews have the propensity to be politically motivated and could hurt the independence of the judiciary. Remember, this is not a body bound to act by popular will. And, whatever system we have much place as a number one priority judicial independence.
Many of the present CCP judges here in Philly are very good and are, in fact, independent. They know that (1) they are in office for 10 years; and (2) it is almost impossible for them not to be retained.
The problem in Philly is that some judges do not share the same caliber with others--that is where selection comes in.
The syetem we have is still in place for the May election
Gaetano, I didn't mean to brush you off, but i have been asking the same question for a week:
what makes a good judge and who are people supporting?
Judges do a lot to make our democracy work and the fact that most regular commenters have ignored this question does not bode well as an indication of judicial race turnout in May.
Are we really ceding judicial seats to the party instead of talking and rallying and educating our friends about who the best judges are?
You are right, but I thought
You are right, but I thought your post was about the system generally--not who I was voting for and why. If that is the case, I can't tell you.
Otherwise, DEII and I are having a very nice conversation about the merits of proposed system.
If, in a month you want to ask me who I am voting for and why, I likely will only tell you my factors. Otherwise, in my profession, it is too personal and professional to publicly say either. But, I gave you my criteria already--the first time you asked this question.
Public service, not a pissing mtach
Gateano, I don't need to know who you are voting for. However, I am pretty politically intelligent and I still don't really know who to vote for. Dan said public service backgrounds impressed him more than those in private. What should us non-lawyers make of that?
Here's what you said you look for:
Can you explain that paragraph to me in more detail?
There are a lot of people who read this blog who, like me, don't know what to do when voting for judge.
Can you help?
Re the first, I do not want
Re the first, I do not want a lawyer who makes habits of yelling and screaming at opposing counsel for no reason. I think civility in the practice is vitally important. For this, I would look at the reputation for professionalism a party has. In addition, I would review their disciplinary history, which is public information as these are officers of the court.
Re the second, I like diversity on the bench. So, if 5 candidates I like are coming from big firms, they are not all going to get my vote. Likewise, if all are coming from the DA's office, the Defenders, or public interest. I think it is important to look at how many spaces we have and pick out a diverse background experience wise for them.
Re the third, I'd rather only vote for 2 candidates I deem qualified than vote for candidate on the borderline or vote just to vote. These people will be making decisions for 10 years. We can't afford to have slouches on the bench.
Most importantly, is the first consideration. Disciplinary history is important. Reputation, which is mostly an insider thing, is important too. Ultimtately, you want a bench that respects everyone, is civil and who respects attorneys and parties before them. I have too often seen judges tear lawyers down for no good reason then they are having a bad day. Practice history is important too. Transactional lawyers probably shouldn't become judges. If you haven't tried a case, what gives you the experience to be a judge.
Also, if the person is an insurance attorney, I would go over his/her pro bono record to ensure that they didn't spend 24/7 defending insurance claims. Likewise, the same with solely PI lawyers. It is good work. It is important work. But, it is work that is, perhaps can make you very inclined in one direction.
I don't have any real context
to evaluate how well the system works now in terms of resulting in quality judges. It seems that people on the "inside" have weighed in here with varying opinions.
By "official review" I really mean only "official recommendation," in that there could be a "independent" body, very deliberately designed to represent a diversty of interested parties, that would make a recommendation with respect to retention.
Where I'm coming from is discouragement about the lack of civic participation (as I know you are), and as I see it, the current system basically works to discourage civic participation. That causality link betweent the Party and the lack of participation can't be proven - but the end result is clear: it requires a lot of money into the Party to get elected, almost no one votes, and those few who do vote have no independent criteria on which to make their votes.
It seems that there needs to be a dilberate attempt to empower and activate civic organizations to play a larger role - and I think there will only be room for that to happen if the role of the Party is diminished.
A Hypothesis For the Lack of Information
Okay, so very few of us know anything about the candidates and their qualifications. Those who do, won't say anything specific for a very good reason -- if you have repeated dealings with the court, whether as an attorney or in any other public or private capacity (presumably a necessary condition for reliable knowledge on the issues and the candidates' qualifications), you might have to interact with that person again. As Lou Agre says, you might have to be at their mercy. And again, it's a rare judge or judicial candidate who will show mercy to you for what you say on YPP or elsewhere.
This is why it's hard to sue for malpractice (since you need a doctor to testify against another doctor), why you don't have criticism of senior police by junior police officers, and why only retired generals will criticize political or tactical decisions by the gov't or the military.
What we need is a retired judge, criminal, property, or civil rights lawyer, or district attorney (someone older than Mr Williams, who might/should run for something again), or someone who will never work in Philadelphia again, to give us the dirt. Otherwise, nobody with credibility will testify against themselves.
Unless...
The other answer, of course, is for one of these people with these qualifications to post anonymously. Who will be the district court's Deep Throat?
It does not have to be that hard
I mean we can go the deep throat way, but there should be easier things to use as metrics when looking at judges:
-like area of practice
-like what kinds of professional experiences and voluntary activity are most relavent to being a judge
-philosophy on sentencing
This just should not be so hard...
Rating Judges
The Bar Association used to send out a questionaire to all lawyers regarding their experience with all judges. I do not think they still do it, but the old results may still be around.
Open Primary? Story From Friday's Daily News
I almost missed this, but this was from Gar Joseph's round-up in Friday's Daily News:
It gets more interesting.