Over the course of history Pennsylvania has employed every method possible of selecting judges for the upper courts. The Commonwealth has also tried every length of term imaginable for judges of its appellate courts, with the exception of lifetime terms.

Just a cursory look at the state's history shows an ongoing effort to perfect the system so citizens can be assured that when they have an issue before the courts, justice will be dispensed with fairness and alacrity.

In 1850, Pennsylvanians - fed up with the problems inherent with the appointive system in place since 1776 - made a deliberate decision to turn the selection of judges over to the electorate.

This was clearly in the interest of improving governance and honored the fact that in Pennsylvania, the people are the sovereigns. The law belongs to them, so they should ultimately decide who is trusted with it.

In the 1960's, revisions were made to the selection process, resulting in the hybrid system we have today where all judges are initially elected in partisan elections and subject to a merit-based retention after serving a ten-year term.

It is interesting to note that the system we have in place today was largely the brainchild of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, with assistance from an organization called A Modern Constitution for Pennsylvania, Inc. Yet now - a mere forty years later - the PBA and a different group calling itself Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts is seeking to abandon that system.

While I have many concerns regarding the chilling prospect of stripping the electorate of its sovereign right to directly choose judges and switching to the so-called "merit selection" system, I'd like to take some time to address positive changes Pennsylvania could make to the electoral system.

First and foremost, we could stop electing appellate court judges on a statewide basis by regionalizing the appellate courts. This would not only reduce the amount of money it takes to mount a successful appellate court campaign, but it would also ensure that those who populate our upper courts remain a diverse group of jurists representing the various regions of the Commonwealth, rather than its two predominant population centers.

While we're on the subject of campaign finance, the Supreme Court already has oversight of judges, lawyers and judicial candidates. If financial contributions to judicial campaigns is a problem, then the Supreme Court should act by taking steps to discourage lawyers from making such contributions and to discourage judicial candidates from accepting them.

The Supreme Court could also enact rules providing for automatic recusal of any judge who has accepted a contribution from any lawyer or law firm scheduled to appear before them. For the PBA and PMC, both of which are populated and funded primarily by members of the legal profession, this should be a no-brainer for eliminating the appearance of any conflict of interest.

If the Supreme Court is unable or unwilling to regulate the legal profession in these matters, then perhaps it's time to look at the possibility of relieving the Court of some of its oversight duties regarding the legal profession.

Pennsylvania could insist that all judicial candidates campaign for their initial term in non-partisan fashion. This could either be accomplished by a combined primary election process or with cross-filing, as we already allow for district judges.

Pennsylvania's judicial candidates have been somewhat hamstrung in what they could say during a campaign in the past, creating a sort of "information gap" for voters. But a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2007 freed candidates from those restraints, so long as they don't make promises on how they would rule on any particular issue. This newfound freedom of speech should be practiced and observed before anyone suggests we abandon our electoral system.

The Bar Association, which has traditionally taken a lead role in providing information to voters regarding appellate court candidates, could improve their evaluation system by including more information solicited from non-members of the legal profession who have had cases before particular judicial candidates, rather than relying on the candidates themselves and lawyers who are apt to give glowing reports.

Let me note that there is no fool-proof or perfect way of selecting appellate court judges. Because the courts are populated by human beings, they will always be subject to the frailties and temptations of the human condition. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve the system when necessary.

But if electing judges is such a horrible idea that Pennsylvania needs to simply abandon it, then where is the list of bad judges the people have elected in error? Where is the list of citizens suffering from injustice doled out by these bad judges? And to what lengths have the proponents of "merit selection" gone to aid these victims and ease their suffering?

I've seen no such information, and that makes me just a bit skeptical of the motives of advocates of the "merit selection" method.

The evolution of Pennsylvania's judicial selection system has followed a natural course toward the sovereignty of the people and self-governance. Our selection system must continue to evolve in response to any flaws we discover.

Evolution requires moving forward, not backwards. Refining and rehabilitating our elective system is the way forward in ensuring that Pennsylvania strives to honor the rule of law. On the other hand, stripping the people of their sovereign power to elect judges is a step backwards toward the rule of men, something America abandoned over 230 years ago.

PACleanSweep is a non-partisan effort dedicated to reforming state government in Pennsylvania. For more information, please visit www.PACleanSweep.com.