PITTSBURGH -- Gov. Ed Rendell and a bipartisan group of state legislators say they want to change the way we choose our top judges.

Pennsylvania is one of only six states that still elects all of its judges.

But the new proposal would bring about a switch to appointed judges at the appellate level, including Supreme Court justices.

For the first time, the state's chief justice has discussed the issue in a televised interview. And he did it with WTAE Channel 4 Action News investigative reporter Jim Parsons. What follows is a transcript of Parsons' report, which first aired Sept. 8, 2008.
(Click here to watch Parsons' report)

---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille says he wants all of us to view the court as non-political. But he knows that's a tall order considering that last fall's Supreme Court election was the most expensive in state history - with five candidates accepting more than $5 million in campaign contributions. And as Team 4 discovered, some of those contributions to a sitting Justice came from individuals with cases pending before the court.

Pennsylvania's Chief Justice isn't a man who worries a lot. Having almost died from wounds he suffered while rescuing a platoon of fellow Marines in Vietnam, Castille has an optimistic outlook on most things.

"Even though I only have one leg now, I still have a life," Castille said.

But Castille does worry about what Pennsylvanians think of him and his colleagues.

"The feeling is out there because of the money that goes around in an elective position like mine that somebody is not gonna get a fair shake. That's not the way it should be…Those things do erode citizens' confidence in justice," said Castille.

Here's the kind of thing Castille is talking about: Team 4 found that in last year's Supreme Court retention election, the campaign of Justice Thomas Saylor received eight contributions totaling $8,000 from lawyers who had matters pending before the Court at the time they made the contribution. There's no law or rule against it.

"The reality of a threat to impartiality, I think, is there," said University of Pittsburgh law professor Tom Ross, a national expert on legal ethics.

"Judges need to project impartiality. And I think it's hard to project impartiality again when you're getting significant campaign contributions from lawyers who are standing up the next day in your courtroom asking you to do something for them," said Ross.

So what's the solution?

"The only thing you can do is you get rid of the election system," Ross said.

And that's exactly the position Pennsylvania's Chief Justice has taken - he wants a new system for selecting appellate level judges through a merit system.

"Yeah, I would do that just to get the corrosive effect of money out of the election process… The citizens ought to believe they're going to get justice no matter who is on the other side, or no mater who in our particular election process, no matter who supported what justice," said Castille.

We need to mention WTAE found no evidence that any campaign contribution influenced judicial decisions. And Justice Castille says he's certain that has not happened, but he is concerned about the public's perception.

The state senate's judiciary committee will conduct hearings this month on the idea of merit selection of appellate judges by a blue ribbon panel.