Yesterday, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts held a press conference in the Capitol rotunda to announce its support for anticipated legislation that will strip the people of Pennsylvania of their right to vote for appellate court judges and put the selection process in the hands of commission dominated by political appointees.

On the surface, the argument is that all the money spent on the 2007 appellate court races, over $7 million total, was an affront to the independence of the judicial system. Implied, however, is that voters are just not smart enough to decide who sits on Pennsylvania's appellate courts.

The proposed commission to pick judicial candidates for referral to the governor for nomination would consist of 14 people, eight of whom would be appointed by the governor and legislative leaders. With an eight-to-six margin, the Executive and Legislative branches would then have full control over the Judicial branch. This flies in the face of any notion of separation of powers between the three branches of government.

PACleanSweep does not disagree that Pennsylvania's appellate courts have a public image problem regarding independence or that the election process should be improved, but this new push for merit selection is definitely not the answer. We urge every Pennsylvanian to call their state legislators TODAY and vehemently oppose this move to put control of our courts in the hands of the few.

Points to ponder:

If 12 randomly selected non-volunteer citizens are smart enough to decide whether a defendant in a homicide case ultimately lives or dies, then why are Pennsylvanians who purposefully registered to participate in elections not smart enough to pick appellate court judges?

Why are the two co-chairs of the Speaker's Reform Commission, who fought for the participation of more people in the legislative process, now fighting for the participation of fewer people in the judicial selection process?

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts is eerily similar to another group called A Modern Constitution for Pennsylvania, Inc., which along with the Pennsylvania Bar Association led the push for constitutional revisions in the 1960's that put our courts on the path to "independence" from the plain language of the Constitution that we suffer under today. Is it a good idea for Pennsylvania to further consolidate power in even fewer hands?

If Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and the Pennsylvania Bar Association are so concerned about the influence of money contributed by lawyers to judicial campaigns, why don't those two groups simply convince their lawyer-members to stop contributing? Or might "merit selection" be a ploy to save the legal profession all that money in the future while firmly keeping its hands on the levers of power?

Are Pennsylvania voters smart enough to decide who becomes an appellate court judge? PACleanSweep believes they are. Call your legislators TODAY to demand that they OPPOSE "merit selection!" Make it an ELECTION issue!