Part of the case for judicial merit selection

Negative ads:

The mean and ugly attack ads which we all saw on our televisions in the last few weeks of the race for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the similar ads that appeared two years ago during the Supreme Court race, are not simply offensive to many of us but they raise serious concerns for our state’s judicial system.

First, the ads are mean-spirited and misleading. Moreover, many of the ads, like the one which was recently broadcast, are simply false. The judges seeking higher offices have had their integrity and their personal lives unfairly subjected to false and misleadingaccusations.

While the winning candidates may not have been responsible for creating the content of the ads, the winning candidate this year specifically endorsed the attack ad run against Judge Dwayne Woodruff. That endorsement appears to be a violation of the pledge all candidates are required to sign when they seek to be evaluated by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

The winning candidates in the race two years ago also never repudiated or denounced the attack ads run on their behalf, which they should have done.

Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that these attack ads were funded overwhelmingly by contributions from the plaintiffs’ trial bar in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The ads, which clearly influenced the races, unfortunately create the impression that the plaintiffs’ trial bar has an undue influence on our judicial selection in this state. Such an impression clearly erodes public confidence in our courts.

It is time for everyone to accept the responsibility to put a stop to this. It is time to heed the teachings of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts that we abandon partisan statewide judicial elections in favor of a sensible merit selection process that will ensure competency and stem the rapidly eroding confidence in the impartiality of our courts. ROBERT J. CINDRICH

TIMOTHY K. LEWIS GEORGE E. McGRANN PAUL H. TITUS

Downtown