Totalitarian Pennsylvania Update.

Poor over-worked voters of the Commonwealth! Lay down the monstrous burden of voting for judges and let Slow Eddie and his lawyer cronies select them on the basis of "merit".

Ahhhh... Think of it! No responsibilty AND judges chosen by our moral and intellectual superiors out of the goodness of their hearts and their devotion to the public good...JOY!

The Morning Call: Rendell revives debate on electing appeals judges
The 1968 constitutional convention that created the current structure of Pennsylvania's court system found itself deadlocked over whether appellate judges should be elected.

That debate was reignited last week when Gov. Ed Rendell proposed having an ''independent expert panel'' help select ''only the most qualified jurists'' for the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth courts.

The judges were appointed until 1850, and since then the state has employed both nonpartisan and partisan elections — the current system.In 1968, the constitutional convention handed the decision to voters, who opted the following spring for direct elections.

The current method, in which the judges run in partisan elections, then periodically face voters in unopposed ''retention'' elections, is biased against well-qualified lawyers who may lack political connections, said John Estey, the Democratic governor's chief of staff. ''Those people really — unless they have some political aspirations, or they want to learn about it — have no way of putting their names into the mix,'' he said.

Changing the system would involve amending the Pennsylvania Constitution, a process that requires approval by the Legislature in two successive sessions and then by voters.

Rendell is proposing a 14-member nominating commission that would give the governor a list of five names for each vacancy. The governor would send his choice from that list to the Senate for simple-majority confirmation. The commission would consist of four gubernatorial appointees (no more than two lawyers, no more than two from a single political party, and all from different counties); one chosen by each of the General Assembly's four caucuses; and six ''public'' members selected from civic groups, unions, business organizations, lawyers' groups, non-lawyer professional groups and law enforcement associations.

Quick! We need to form a new caucus in the General Assembly: The Anti-Professional Politicians Caucus.

The finer points include staggered commission terms, public disclosure of the names sent to the governor, and having the commission pick the judge or justice whenever the governor and Senate reach an impasse. Four years after a jurist is selected, he or she would face a 10-year retention election.

It would apply only to future vacancies, and take effect after Rendell leaves office.

Critics of the partisan-election method argue that many voters know little or nothing about the candidates except what they see on the ballot — name, party affiliation and county of residence. Qualifications become a minor factor and campaigning, they say, is harmful to the judges' public image.

Brilliant! Having judges beholden to un-elected representatives of approved pressure groups is soooooooooo much better.

''It's a crap shoot,'' said Lynn V. Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a nonpartisan court-reform group. ''So much of it depends on their ballot position, how much money they might raise from lawyers.''

The Pennsylvania Bar Association, which has supported a form of appellate-court merit selection since 1947, believes it could lead to a similar system for county judges. ''It's critical for us to get the appellate judges selected by merit,'' said association President Ken Horoho. ''I think once that happens and people see that that is the best process by which to get good, qualified judges elected and retained, then I think we can re-evaluate whether or not we'll recommend it to the county bars.''

Listen, Horoho, (if that is your real name) the people want to keep the power to toss out bad judges. If the people of Vermont had such power, do you really think those friends of child-rape would still be on the bench?

Supporters of direct elections say voters should have the power to decide, and predict the composition of a merit-selection panel will be controversial.