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.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]