Two competing bills working their way through the Pennsylvania statehouse are aimed at reducing the influence of money in the way in which high-level judges are selected. But according to experts, the chances of success for either of them are uncertain at best.

The dueling pieces of legislation represent the latest wave of the over 50-year push to reform appeals court judicial elections, which in recent years have seen huge increases in the amounts candidates spend on campaigning. Critics of judicial elections say fundraising makes judges susceptible to bias in favor of their donors, should the interests of those benefactors ever rest in a case before the judge.

House Bill 196, backed by state Republicans, proposes the creation of seven judicial districts for choosing judges of the state Superior Court and the seven justices of the Supreme Court, instead of a statewide election. The measure would reduce the influence of high population centers like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. It currently awaits consideration by the state Senate Government Committee.

The Democratic counterpart, House Bill 111, calls for doing away with judicial elections altogether in favor of a statewide, bipartisan nominating commission that selects judges for approval by the governor—also known as merit selection. HB 111 cleared the judiciary committee and awaits a vote by the full House, but is considered by some to be stuck in limbo.

Both are proposed amendments to the state constitution, and if they pass through the legislature, would require referendum for voters to weigh in.

Naturally, the authors of both bills remain optimistic about their chances of passage, while downplaying their opponents' likelihood of success.

The prime sponsor of HB 196, Rep. Russ Diamond, R-Lebanon, said the leadership of the majority Republican Senate backs the bill, which has been criticized by Democrats as a form of gerrymandering.

"It wouldn't be gerrymandering at all," Diamond said. "Of course Democrats are in the minority of the General Assembly right now, and that's going to be their rallying cry."

He said that the maps that would be drawn by the legislature in compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

"Regional elections are better than state elections," Diamond added. "We have to ask, why do we have seven justices and not one? We have seven because we want a broad range of interpretations on the law and to form some kind of consensus."

"Electing those judges on a statewide basis over the last 50 years has proven not to include all that diversity of Pennsylvania," he continued.

Regional elections still involve campaigning, however, and the influence of money remains—but Diamond claimed that influence would be reduced since candidates would only campaign in their home districts.

For HB 111′s prime sponsor, however, any money in judicial politics is too much.

Rep. Paul Schemel, R-Franklin, worked with Rep. Joanna McClinton, D-Philadelphia, to garner widespread Democratic support of HB 111 in the House. He acknowledged that the bill is currently in a holding pattern in the House and is up for several amendments. But Schemel was also of the mind that the Senate probably wouldn't accept the competing HB 196—and that voters definitely wouldn't.

As for merit selection, Schemel stressed that its chances for success lie in timing.

"You have to look for the opportune time to move something or not move something," he said, adding, "I think that 196 has to play itself out, I mean I speculate that when it hits the floor of the Senate it will not win on referendum. I don't see how Pennsylvania would accept that, especially in urban centers."

But there looms a larger question over both bills: Why has the push for judicial election reform and merit selection remained at a stalemate for the past six decades?

According to pollster and political observer G. Terry Madonna, the people of Pennsylvania just don't care that much. Most of the time, voters are so far removed from judicial politics that they don't even know who they're voting for, let alone care about how they're put on the bench.

Madonna, director of Franklin & Marshall College's Center for Politics and Public Affairs, said the two bills currently under consideration are unlikely to gain much traction.

"One of the problems with it is it's not a high-level issue with voters. Whenever you deal with courts that tends to be the case," he said. "I'm not saying activists won't pay attention to it, but not the average voter."

Additionally, Madonna said that while he saw HB 111 as a continuation of the reform efforts of former Gov. Dick Thornburgh in the 1960s, HB 196 was seemingly a response to the Democratic victory in the redrawing of the state's voting districts by the majority Democrat Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2018.

"Republicans like the idea [of HB 196] because if you elect the appeals court folks out of districts you'll have a better opportunity to reverse what many of them think is a Democratic takeover" of state government, Madonna said.

A Meritorious Effort?

Despite the difficulties it faces, David Thornburgh, president of the government watchdog group Committee of Seventy and son of the former governor, said he believes the time for merit selection has come.

"We're at a time when there's a fundamental rethinking of structures of governance," Thornburgh said. "Look at redistricting; I've never seen the kind of traction that issue has gotten over the last three or four years."

He continued, "I think this is capturing some of that interest and looking for a way to build a more arm's-length nominating process that gives people some restored faith in the independence of the judiciary."

But Thornburgh said he has no illusions about the hurdles any merit selection measure needs to clear:

"Changing the rules of the game in Pennsylvania requires you to get those who have benefited by those rules to change the very rules they benefited from," he said. "It runs smack into political self-interest."

And even if judicial elections were to be replaced by a nominating commission, as HB 111 proposes, Thornburgh acknowledged that it would not completely remove politics from the process. The legislation calls for members of the nominating commission to be chosen by members of the General Assembly and the governor.

In a state like Pennsylvania—with a long history of graft, patronage and backroom-dealing in its government—there could be major consequences if power is transferred from the many to the few.

Still, Thornburgh said the benefits outweigh the risks.

"This speaks to a balancing act you have to acknowledge. People say there's no way to take politics out of a process like this, and they're right, but we're looking for a way to take more politics out of it than there is now," Thornburgh said.

Maida Milone, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, shared Thornburgh's sentiment. PMC's long-standing mission has been the implementation of merit selection in Pennsylvania, and the organization worked with Schemel and McClinton on crafting HB 111.

"As long as human beings are involved, there will be politics. What we're trying to do is remove the influence of money as much as possible," Milone said. "No system is perfect, but I believe the hybrid appointment process we've proposed is much cleaner than the current system."

As for whether HB 111 stands a chance, Milone stopped short of calling the legislation dead on arrival, but acknowledged its status as being in limbo.

"I think it's very difficult to get a bill through that needs bipartisan support when its 'perceived' to have a potentially political impact," Milone said.

She added, "HB 111 still remains the shining light for the judiciary of PA, and when HB 196 runs its course and fails as we hope it will, then we hope people will come to their senses and see the reform we need is embodied in HB 111."