(November 2001) - Now that the statewide appellate judicial elections are part of Pennsylvania history, the Pennsylvania Bar Association is taking a look back at the 2001 campaign and making a plea to the public regarding the future selection of statewide judges.

As most of us know, judicial campaigns are different from other political campaigns. Candidates are prohibited from speaking on controversial topics that may come before them as a judge. Candidates in judicial races aren�t allowed to promote themselves with the catchy slogans or �branding� that can be created in campaigns for other public offices.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association�s Judicial Evaluation Commission, headed by Philadelphia lawyer Michael A. Bloom, performed an outstanding public service again this year in evaluating all of the candidates for the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth courts. The non-partisan PBA JEC provided voters with an objective evaluation and rating for each candidate. It looked at the candidates� educational backgrounds, read their legal briefs or opinions, listened to their answers to questions during in-depth interviews, and talked to people who knew these candidates as colleagues, judges and adversaries.

Newspapers across the commonwealth did their part for public education by printing the ratings in their newspapers and in their editorials. The editorial boards of many newspapers used the ratings to formulate their endorsements of the candidates. The League of Women Voters linked their Web site to the ratings posted on the PBA�s Web site. The candidates themselves featured their PBA JEC ratings in their television and print campaign advertisements. Indeed, those candidates who received �Highly Recommended� or �Recommended� used their favorable ratings much like a �Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval� to help guide the public.

We�re proud of these good efforts to provide substantive information about the candidates. While there is still much work to do to counter the fact that name recognition, geography, ballot position and party affiliation continue to influence many voters in the judicial selection process, this year�s election was a positive step forward in getting information to Pennsylvania�s voters.

At the same time, a new factor was introduced into Pennsylvania�s judicial elections this year: third-party, negative advertising. All of the candidates for appellate court signed the state bar association�s Judicial Campaign Advertising Pledge to run honest, dignified campaigns. Despite what appeared to many observers to be a highly negative campaign, both of the candidates for Supreme Court adhered to the pledge. Unfortunately, the third-party organizations were not bound by it.

So, what does the future hold for appellate elections?

Some observers would like to see the �gag� order lifted so that judicial candidates could talk about issues. But this isn�t a good idea. Our justice system would not be well-served by permitting judicial candidates to pander to the electorate with preconceived and publicly-announced positions on disputed legal issues. This practice would necessarily hamper the successful candidate�s ability as a judge to objectively apply the unique facts of a case to legal precedent in arriving at an impartial decision - the basic obligation of every judge.

Will television and print advertising get nastier? Will judicial candidates refuse to sign pledges to run clean campaigns? Will we see an influx of soft money from third parties into judicial campaigns, thus adding another dimension to the public�s belief that justice can be bought?

These are all very real possibilities, should we continue to elect our appellate judges, and they certainly don�t bode well for the future of our justice system or for engendering public confidence in it.

The answer, then, is for Pennsylvania to join the majority of states in this nation in using an appointive system. Under this system, a nonpartisan panel of citizens would recommend potential judges to the governor. The governor would nominate a candidate, who must be confirmed by the state Senate. The judge would serve for a short term, and the public would then vote on whether to retain the judge for a full term.

Less negative campaigning, less pressure on potential judicial candidates to raise money to run for office, and more public confidence in our justice system - an appointive system could be the winning ticket for Pennsylvania and its citizens in the days ahead.