Share:
House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda
House of Representatives
Session of 2013 - 2014
Regular Session
MEMORANDUM
| Posted: | March 18, 2014 02:33 PM |
|---|---|
| From: | Representative Garth D. Everett |
| To: | All House members |
| Subject: | Change the Way Appellate Court Judges Are Selected in this State |
| In the near future, I will introduce a joint resolution to amend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to change the way appellate court judges are selected in this state. Specifically, my legislation would require that all appellate court judges and justices be elected by judicial district. Over the years, I have heard strong arguments for Pennsylvania to select appellate court judges and justices by “merit selection.” In fact, I cosponsored one such bill during the last legislative session. Under this model, a commission would nominate a field of candidates from which the Governor would choose. The Governor’s selection would then be subject to a 2/3rds vote in the Senate for confirmation. One of the chief arguments for “merit selection” is that voters typically don’t know and never actually meet candidates for statewide appellate court. Candidates tend to be those that are very well-funded and most politically-connected. Under the existing statewide selection process, most appellate judges and justices (nearly 2/3rds) come from the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh region and a handful of others come from Central PA. After researching and thinking about the issue, I believe that there is another, better option. For the last 140 years (since the Constitutional Convention of 1874), selection of all judges, justices and justices of the peace (now magisterial district judges) has been vested in the people of Pennsylvania through the electoral process. I propose that we continue this process of judicial selection. But, instead of electing appellate court judges and justices on a statewide basis, we divide the Commonwealth into judicial regions for the Commonwealth, Superior and Supreme Courts. Under my proposal, there would be nine (9) Commonwealth Court districts; Fifteen (15) Superior Court districts; and, seven (7) Supreme Court districts. These districts would be formed by following traditional redistricting principles found in our Constitution (requiring populations as equal as possible in each district; with compact and contiguous geographic boundaries; and, with splits in counties, municipalities and wards only where “absolutely necessary”) and the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. This isn’t an original idea. Eleven other states (Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin) select their judges for either some or all of their appellate courts through the judicial district method. These changes would become effective after the next decennial census in 2021. The duty to create appellate judicial districts in the Commonwealth and to implement the transition to this new method of judicial selection would be given to a reformed Reapportionment Commission. My legislation would add two judicial appointees to the Reapportionment Commission (who must be sitting judges or justices). The six appointees (four legislative and two judicial) would appoint a seventh person to serve as Commission Chair. If the six appointees are unable to agree on a Chair within a set period of time, the Governor would appoint the Commission Chair. With state appellate judicial districts evenly distributed by population across the Commonwealth, voters are more likely to know their candidates and to be able to meet with and personally hear from a candidate for their district. Every region of the Commonwealth would have representation; and, the Voting Rights Act would ensure that minority populations in this state would not have their voting strength diluted. Most importantly, under this Constitutional amendment, the people’s voice in the electoral process would be even more meaningful. I urge you to cosponsor this joint resolution. GE/clz |
Introduced as HB2224