I agree that the other story was a little better.

But regardless, why does a reporter, when talking to someone who is profiting off of an obviously ridiculous and broken system, have to pretend like they are not aware of that? In terms of exposing stuff, I think a lot more people read the stories, rather than an editorial.

And, why couldn't he asked him things other than "why are you effective" and "are you ever going to run for office"? It is just a little too Access Hollywood for me.

I really appreciate what the DN reporters do, especially given how few of them there are. But I think treating a guy like Sabatina like a celebrity instead of asking him about the serious issues that come from what he does, is pretty problematic.

The problem isn't that they are acting as consultants. The problem is that they are acting as paid consultants. As per Ben's point, Dan's post, and my own naivety, I'm shocked that there isn't already some sort of ethical framework to stop this type of activity.

I don't want a system where the City Committee summarily chooses, and that is effectively it. I also don't want this, where the only outsiders who can win are those who can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. There has to be better ways.

On #1, the difference is that when a public official (or quasi-public official, whatever it is that ward leaders are) sells their expertise or influence, their getting paid amounts to "double dipping", as they're getting paid for doing what it is they should be doing anyway.

Further, there's a conflict between their primary job (as an elected or quasi-elected official) and their secondary job as a "consultant".

Mr. Agre-
The problem with Mr. Sabatina and other individuals and Ward leaders who make JUDGES winners is that the Judges, who by definition are supposed to fair and impartial, are beholden to those who helped them get elected and will likely not be fair and impartial on issues which are important to those people who helped him, and their interests.
WE MUST APPOINT JUDGES IN THIS STATE. It will remove the inappropriate influence that politics plays in the election of Judges.

I don't think that "The real issue is why someone wants these jobs so bad". I think the real issue is why has the job been put out to the highest bidder.

Well said, Tom.

There is an interesting discussion of this issue going on right now at Philly Blog. I posted the link for an organization which has been around for a while, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts at http://www.pmconline.org/

They’ve been advocating for merit selection for many years.

Seand posted Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts’ argument for merit selection on Philly Blog. Dan, I don’t think reposting this is a violation of copyright as I am sure Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts would like their position to be widely disseminated. So here it is:

Partisan Elections or Merit Selection?
Myth vs. Reality

Over the years, defenders of partisan elections of appellate court judges have invented many myths to derail public support for the most widely-discussed alternative: merit selection.

Merit selection supporters are often called upon to reply to the arguments put forth by detractors. Here are some suggested responses:

MYTH: "Judges should be elected just like other public officials."

REALITY: Judges are different from all other elected public officials. Voters should know where gubernatorial, legislative or mayoral candidates stand on controversial issues. We vote for them because of those stands and expect them to fulfill their campaign promises. Judges, however, must be impartial and resolve disputes based solely on the law and evidence. They cannot be held to commitments or comments made on the campaign trail, for such comments, as well as their own personal views of disputed issues, have no role in judicial decision-making.

MYTH: "Contributions to judicial campaigns are no worse than contributions to any political campaign."

REALITY: The field of donors in judicial elections is far more limited than in elections for other public offices. The major contributors are lawyers and special interest groups that regularly appear before the courts. At the very least, this raises the question of whether the recipient can be fair and impartial in ruling on contributors' cases. This question crosses the mind of every litigant whose opponent, or opponent's lawyer, has contributed to the campaign of the presiding judge.

MYTH: "Voters are informed about and involved in judicial elections."

REALITY: Debunking this myth is easy: Just ask 9 out of 10 voters to name the candidates running for appellate judgeships during an election year. (Polls confirm that most can't do this -- even after exiting the voting booth!) Indeed, many voters do not actually vote for judicial candidates. Statewide judicial races are almost invisible; even the media hardly pays attention. Thus, judges are often chosen for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications such as top ballot position, county of residence, gender, name recognition or raising enough money to afford the most convincing attack advertisement against an opponent.

Party endorsement is often critical as well. The actual choices in statewide judicial races are often made long before election day when political leaders handpick their candidates. Other judicial hopefuls may drop out after losing the endorsement or drawing a less desirable ballot position. Many highly qualified candidates, recognizing the futility of running for office without party backing, won't even consider seeking a judgeship in the first place.

MYTH: "Merit selection in Pennsylvania would mirror how federal judges are chosen."

REALITY: The crucial difference between merit selection and the federal appointment process is the constitutionally mandated bipartisan, broad-based and independent nominating commission, the members of which are selected by a number of elected officials and from whose list the Governor must select a nominee. No such commission is mandated by the U.S. Constitution for selecting federal judges. The President is a "commission" of one, although some chief executives opt for input from Senators (usually of the same political party as the President).

Also, federal judges serve for a life term, whereas state appointment proposals are for a short initial term, followed by a popular, uncontested retention election for a full 10-year term.

In an effort to avoid the confirmation log-jams of the federal system, a merit selection process would impose strict time deadlines for action by the nominating commission, the Governor and the Senate and, preferably, would include a process by which to resolve an impasse between inaction by the Governor and/or the Senate.

MYTH: "Merit selection will result in the appointment of only big firm lawyers from major metropolitan areas to the appellate bench."

REALITY: American Judicature Society statistics confirm that in merit selection states, judges come from all different types of legal practice. Moreover, once partisan elections are eliminated, there would be no advantage to hailing from a large city (where the most voters are located and the money is concentrated). Thus lawyers from small cities, towns and rural areas would have as much chance to be considered and selected as big city lawyers. The need for such diversity would be recognized by the broad-based nominating commission with members from all over the state.

MYTH: "Merit selection means that the people will never have a say in who sits on the appellate bench."

REALITY: Citizens will still be involved in the selection of judges under merit selection. First of all, the people's elected representatives play a central role in the selection process: popularly elected officials appoint members of the nominating commission, and judges must be nominated by the popularly-elected Governor and confirmed by the popularly-elected state Senate. Moreover, through nonpartisan retention elections held after an initial term of office, the voters will have the final say on whether judges deserve to keep their jobs.

MYTH: "Merit selection is just as political as partisan elections."

REALITY: No judicial selection process is entirely apolitical, nor should it be. What's important is to what extent politics dictates who ultimately sits on the appellate bench. Most proposed merit selection plans call for an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on the nominating commission, to be appointed by officials from both political parties. The Governor would have to select, and the Senate could only confirm, judges from the commission's list. All commissioners would serve terms that would NOT coincide with the term of office of the persons appointing them, thus safeguarding their independence. A 1993 American Bar Association survey reported that an overwhelming majority of nominating commission chairs around the county felt that political influence or considerations either never or only infrequently intruded into the commissions' deliberations.

MYTH: "Merit selection is elitist."

REALITY: Some opponents of merit selection use "elitist" to refer to the fact that a nominating commission of a few select individuals will make the initial all-important judicial choices. Others use "elitist" to describe the type of judicial candidate likely to appeal to a nominating commission (often referring to a white male graduate from a prestigious law school). Neither "elitist" label applies. Merit selection proposals go to great lengths to ensure that the nominating commission is as reflective as possible of all segments of the community.

MYTH: "The partisan election system should be improved rather than discarded."

REALITY: The election process is not "fixable." None of the most commonly proposed election reforms -- public financing, rotating ballot position, eliminating county designation from the ballot, capping lawyers' contributions to judicial campaigns-- solves the core problems associated with electing judges. Judicial candidates still would have to raise money and attract substantial political support, and voters still would not have enough valuable, relevant information to make truly informed decisions.

MYTH: "Merit selection of appellate judges is the first step along the road to merit selection of judges on all of Pennsylvania's courts."

REALITY: It is not unusual for a state to have merit selection for some judges (usually appellate judges), and elections for others. Merit selection supporters appreciate that the greatest need for change is on the statewide level: far more money is raised by the candidates and the voters are far less familiar with those running. All of the recently proposed merit selection bills have targeted only the selection of judges on the three statewide courts.

MYTH: "A legislator's vote for merit selection of appellate judges in the General Assembly is the same as a vote for eliminating partisan elections."

REALITY: Changing the judicial selection system requires a constitutional amendment approved by both the Senate and House in two consecutive sessions. The issue is then put to the voters in a statewide referendum. Therefore, a lawmaker casting a vote in favor of a merit selection proposal does nothing more than create the opportunity for citizens to decide for themselves how appellate judges should be chosen. Even some lawmakers who are opposed to merit selection acknowledge that it's time to let the people decide.