Pennsylvania remains one of only six states that chooses all of its judges in contested partisan elections. In recent years, these elections have become more expensive and increasingly divisive. Now, one of our state Supreme Court justices has been indicted for alleged illegal political activity that could only happen in an election. Yet Pennsylvania stubbornly clings to a system that doesn’t make sense and causes serious problems for the judiciary and the public.

This year, Pennsylvania came closer than it has in a long time to acting to change how we select appellate judges. There was a productive public hearing on merit selection legislation in March and an extensive House Judiciary Committee debate in June. Although the issue was tabled by a one-vote margin on procedural grounds at the last minute, these were crucial steps on the road to judicial selection reform in Pennsylvania.

This content has been archived.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 Advance® 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]