State needs reform in judge elections

The way it was done late last month in Harrisburg did not even approach the level of serious deliberation the issue deserves.

How Pennsylvania picks judges for its appellate courts definitely needs work.

That’s the upside of two proposed constitutional amendments recently approved on near party-line votes by the state House Judiciary Committee. Addressing an important flaw in the selection of top judges is a worthy effort. The way it was done late last month in Harrisburg did not even approach the level of serious deliberation the issue deserves.

Republicans upset over the 2018 Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to rewrite the state’s congressional map put two versions of reform up for votes.

They did so without conducting a hearing worthy of the name, which led to two proposals with the same absurd premise: that justice is a matter of regional predilections.

Each proposed amendment would change the state constitution regarding how those serving on the state’s Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth courts are chosen.

All are now nominated in partisan primaries and chosen in statewide general elections.

And voters get a chance to remove them in yesor-no retention votes every 10 years after they’re first elected.

Here’s how the two proposed constitutional amendments would work.

Under one, voters would elect appellate judges from seven districts across the state. The districts would be as nearly equal in population as possible.

The other would split the state into three districts of equal population, from which future judges and justices would be nominated by the governor from a list provided by a bipartisan commission.

The commission would be made up of lawyers and laymen, none of whom could be paid public officials or hold office in a political party.

They would stand for retention by the voters four years later.

An amendment seeking to block consideration of such important changes until hearings could be held was rejected. The lack of deliberation on the proposed amendments is either the saddest or the second saddest thing about them.

One key flaw in the recently approved amendments is the politics that inspired them.

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s 2018 congressional districts ruling with a plan to similarly gerrymander judicial elections is not an honorable response.

A better answer to a congressional map that was hard to describe without the words “partisan gerrymander” was available.

Putting a citizens commission in charge of redistricting would secure the system against another such ruling.

And it would put voters in charge of choosing their lawmakers rather than, as under the current system, letting lawmakers pick their voters.

The failure to hold hearings on reforming judicial elections is equally troubling.

The current system is a mess. It forces candidates for top courts to raise a lot of money while being barred by ethical considerations from saying anything that might help a voter pick one over another.

One of the proposals’ ideas — of a commission of people outside politics having a key role in the process — is a good one.

Such a bipartisan panel should not, however, have its choices limited by geography.

Let its members recommend people to the governor, have them approved by the Senate and, again as under the commission proposal, force them to stand before the voters for retention.

As usual, the voters deserve better than they’re getting from their Legislature, which should ditch regional justice and give merit selection a chance.

The current system is a mess. It forces candidates for top courts to raise a lot of money while being restricted from saying anything that might help a voter pick one over another.