Control of the Bench at Heart of Supreme Court Race

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts Executive Director Lynn A. Marks said any study conducted mainly by special interest groups is biased. She said those studies do not analyze the judges’ opinions objectively and there is almost no way the public can get its hands on an objective study of court opinions.



“The voters are often at the mercy of those distortions,” she said.



Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts is a nonprofit, nonpartisan statewide organization committed to improving and reforming the commonwealth’s judicial system.



The organization strongly advocates a merit-based appointment system for judges rather than public elections.



With a merit-based appointment system, Marks said, the nominating committee would be required to conduct an objective analysis of candidates’ written opinions.



The merit-based judgeship advocates say the public is just not informed enough about the role of a judge to make an educated vote. And, they say, the public doesn’t care enough to become more informed.



“The public is making decisions based on political party registration, geography, gender, perceptions of ethnicity from last names,” said Robert L. Byer, an attorney with Kirkpatrick & Lockhart in Pittsburgh and a former Commonwealth Court judge.



Byer called the election of judges “absurd,” and he said this race exemplifies that absurdity. Because both candidates have received the highest recommendation from the Pennsylvania Bar Association, he said, there is no real way for the public to distinguish them.

Campaign Ads

A sore spot in this race has been the running of television advertisements critical of Ford Elliott and praising Eakin in Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. The ads were sponsored by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a Church Falls, Va.-based non-profit group that law enforcement officials claim has close ties to the National Rifle Association.



The LEAA worked to thwart the ascension of Judge Frederica Messiah-Jackson from the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court to the federal bench in 1998.



The attack ad accused Ford Elliott of making decisions in two specific cases that kept criminals from being punished and praised Eakin as a former prosecutor who would help fight crime.



Eakin issued a two-page statement on Oct. 23, not so much to criticize the spots directly as to distance himself from them.



Eakin started off by saying he was concerned about the “tension and rancor” that has arisen in the Supreme Court campaign. But he said there is only so much a candidate can do to control the free speech of groups and individuals.



But Ford Elliott is not innocent when it comes to negative ads either, Eakin said at the taping of a debate in Philadelphia on Oct. 26 that was televised that weekend.



According to Associated Press reports of the debate, Eakin produced a copy of a pro-Ford Elliott commercial that criticized the LEAA ads and featured Eakin’s name prominently.



All negative advertising has left a bad taste in some attorneys’ mouths.



Rieders said that, on a personal level, he is concerned about the advertising.



“My view is that, in the wake of Sept. 11, all public officials have an obligation not to be negative but to talk to us about their abilities and strictly follow judicial cannons,” he said.

Party Control