Passing Judgment

The City Paper/YPP Project

by Ray Murphy

	print	email	reply	rss feed

Published: Mar 14, 2007

There are three Web sites dedicated exclusively to covering the mayor's race and news about the candidates fills the newspapers daily. That's because Philadelphians use the opportunity to elect a new mayor as a way to discuss a collective vision for the city.

Often overlooked, however, are the more than 40 people running for judgeships. Judicial races may not seem related to the symbolic, future-of-our-city big picture, but judges maintain democracy's infrastructure and do the most to actually effect concrete change in the lives of Philadelphians on a daily basis.

Yet most people don't really know what judges do and what qualifies them for their job, so many voters ignore judicial races or pick candidates at random. That's why I asked Young Philly Politics readers to answer the following questions:

Is it smart to elect judges? Does it make sense to elect judges to a court without being able to decide what division they will go to? How do progressive or reform-oriented voters develop metrics to select the best judicial candidates?

Before I summarize what folks said, here's a brief guide to understanding the role local judges play after they get elected:

• Traffic Court judges collect traffic-citation fines. For folks of limited income, a bad ruling can break the bank and possibly limit a driver's access to work if they are restricted from using their vehicle.

• Every adult criminal arrest in Philadelphia goes through Municipal Court first. This "people's court" is divided into civil and criminal divisions; it is a place for people to get justice cheaply and much faster than Common Pleas Court, with lower court fees, and the understanding that most people will represent themselves. There are no jury trials, so judges play a big role.

• The Common Pleas Court is the first major step on the way to the state Supreme Court. There are 93 such judges in Philadelphia who are currently assigned as follows: Trial Division, 67; Family Court, 20; and Orphans' Court, 3. The trial division is further divided by criminal and civil cases.

These judges don't run for an open judicial seat in a specific division; they are assigned by a presiding judge. Rulings made here affect everything from medical-malpractice lawsuits to adoptions and custody matters to murder and robbery. Whether it's approval of a second-parent adoption (something gays like me have to worry about), hearing a case trying to stop the opening of casinos, a landlord/tenant dispute or a criminal case (which encompasses quite a lot of Philadelphians as violence and crime continue to rise), they play very key roles.

So, what did YPP readers think about electing judges? With cases being made here, and elsewhere in the country, to stop this method of selecting judges, one respondent noted that "merit selection got us Clarence Thomas."

Gaetano Piccirilli, a YPP regular and local attorney, had this to say about elections versus merit selection: "I do not want to give the governor (who hardly ever comes from Philly, save [Ed] Rendell) the prerogative to appoint judges in Philadelphia. Remember, the role of a judge is not like that of a legislature. Judges should not be making policy to the extent our legislature does. If they did, it would be severe encroachment and undemocratic."

Common Pleas Court candidate Tom Martin agreed. "As a wounded veteran of judicial races, I have been tempted to jump on the merit-selection wagon, but I am convinced it is fool's gold," he wrote. "It doesn't take money or influence out of the process, it just makes it less transparent."

Lou Agre, Democratic leader of the city's 21st Ward, points to the federal system of appointment as proof that merit selection is just as politicized as direct elections: "One of the problems with the U.S. Supreme Court is that now that [Sandra Day] O'Connor has left, there are no judges that have been forged by the political process. ... [W]hen a judge goes through the political system he learns ... by being at the mercy of others that someday people will appear before him/her being at their mercy. It is not a bad lesson."

YPP co-editor Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg didn't buy Agre's defense. "Let's not B.S. here. ... [These are] judges who happen to curry favor with the party, who sit with an envelope of cash at the Airport Hilton, hoping not to be spurned." He and many others were not necessarily opposed to judicial election, but definitely favored some kind of reform.

Seth Williams, front-runner in the 2009 District Attorney's race to replace Lynne Abraham, offered a solution. "While I think the overall quality of judges would be improved through an appointment process, I also strongly believe that the public must have a direct say in the election of the judges or the selection of the appointing commission," wrote Williams, who suggested amending the state constitution to establish an appointed panel of representatives of diverse bar associations to recruit and screen applicants for judicial vacancies.

That compromise, as well as the amendments offered by other commentators, provide a road map to judicial reform. However, there is still a looming election. How does the average voter figure out whom to pick this May?

Everyone agreed that experience is key. Integrity, civility, places of practice and an interest in public service and pro bono work were all listed as important attributes. Area of practice was also a big concern for many. Lawyers who have never spent any time in a courtroom were not generally considered qualified to serve as judges.

A commentator named J. Young pointed out that "the current judicial system places people in areas of the law in which they've never practiced. A transactional attorney who has never seen a courtroom shouldn't be handling major criminal cases. Criminal attorneys don't have the knowledge base to practice family law ... you're literally at the mercy of someone who may or may not know what you're talking about."

Urevick-Ackelsberg and Karen Bojar went further: "It would be really freaking helpful if in a system where many of the problems and cases have to do with poverty, if we had judges who had experience dealing with poor clients. It is a fallacy that we need judges to close their eyes, listen to the arguments of two sides, and make a decision. In a city with such high poverty, and with so many people unrepresented, a judge must do a lot more, and actively help people understand their rights under the law."

Our Web site has brought together a lot of people who wanted a forum in which they could impact the electoral and legislative process. Clearly, we have ignored the role that young Philadelphians should play in impacting the judiciary. There are obvious systemic reforms that need to be made, but in the meantime, simply educating ourselves about the candidates can make a big difference in the delivery of justice. To that end, YPP is working to put together a voter's guide for the 2007 primary with easy-to-understand information about judicial candidates. Check www.youngphillypolitics.com for more information.

(editorial@citypaper.net)

Editor's Note: Ray Murphy is currently working for Chaka Fattah's election campaign.

 

All reader comments are subject to our Terms of Use. By clicking Post Comment, you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms.

Name	please enter your name
Email (will not be published)	please enter a valid email
Comment	please enter a comment
Enter the security code on the right in the textbox below.
Security Code	please enter the code
	Join the City Paper Mailing List

Relocation Blues
The Bell Curve
First the Snakes, Now This?
Mike Checked
Bill Greenlee
Ask A Candidate
Is Nutter Better?