The following is a transcript of a report by Team 4 investigative reporter Jim Parsons that first aired March 5, 2007, on WTAE Channel 4 Action News at 5:30 p.m.

---

Team 4 investigative reporter Jim Parsons discovered something that should concern every Pennsylvanian, because any one of us could end up in front of a judge.

This will likely be an expensive year for judicial campaigns in Pennsylvania. Eight appellate court seats are up for retention and voters will also fill four vacancies on the bench.

A lot of political contributions will be flowing toward Harrisburg, so Team 4 examined contributions that were made the last time the state Supreme Court had retention elections.

In an election that sent shock waves across Pennsylvania and sounded the first warning about how angry voters were over the pay raise issue, voters turned Supreme court justice Russell Nigro out of office, the first time something like that had ever happened in a retention election.

Justice Sandra Schultz Newman won retention, but just barely.

Remember a retention election is just an up or down vote every 10 years. Newman and Nigro didn't have any opponents. Both former justices raised a lot of money in just a few months trying to hold on to their seats.

It likely won't surprise you to learn that most of those contributions came from lawyers.

But this might.

A Team 4 analysis shows that Nigro and Newman's campaigns accepted contributions from attorneys and litigants who had matters pending before the Supreme Court at the time they wrote the checks.

Campaign reports showed that Justice Newman's campaign received contributions from five attorneys and two litigants who had pending cases.

The largest check, $25,000, came from a Philadelphia attorney who at the time, had a petition for allowance of appeal pending before the court.

The campaign for Justice Nigro got contributions from seven attorneys and two litigants who had pending matters before the Supreme Court.

In Pennsylvania, there is no rule against it.

"The perception, unfortunately, is that money talks," said Lynn Marks of Pa. for Modern Courts.

Marks, an attorney in Philadelphia, heads PMC. She is on a campaign to do away with our system of electing appellate court judges and replace it with a merit selection process.

"Whether or not judges make decisions according to campaign contributions, and I have not seen evidence of that, and I am not saying this is a reality, but the fact that there is this perception out there should raise red flags, and it's very dangerous because of the money that it takes to win a judgeship," said Marks.

Team 4 did not find any evidence that any justice was influenced by a campaign contribution in 2005. What concerns court-watchers Team 4 spoke with is the appearance of influence.

"It's just so unseemly," said Dr. Tom Ross of the University of Pittsburgh. "It so erodes, I think, the public sense of confidence in the impartiality of their judges, to let this go on."

Ross said judges themselves should close their credibility gap.

"I would hope and think they would lead the effort to reform this," said Ross.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy turned down Team 4's repeated requests for an interview, but his administrative office gave Team 4 a statement saying in part, "None of these issues are under the control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or the chief justice."

But Marks said the court could change its own code of conduct.

"Does the supreme court have the authority, the ability to do that if they want to?" said Marks. "Yes."

In fact, a 1998 study commissioned by the court itself recommended several rule changes, including limits on campaign contributions and a requirement for judges to recuse themselves in cases where they've received a contribution from a party or attorney.

The Supreme Court did not implement any of the recommendations, even though that same panel polled Pennsylvanians and found nine out of 10 people thought judges' decisions were influenced by campaign contributions.

But Marks would rather do away with judicial elections altogether, and that would require a referendum of voters.

"So it's the people who will decide whether we like the way we select judges, whether we prefer a system which is so much based on how much money you can raise and if people know your name," said Marks. "Or do we want a system that basically is based on the qualifications of an individual."

Gov. Ed Rendell is expected to announce later this month his support for doing away with judicial elections at the appellate level in favor of merit selection. But a new WTAE Channel 4-Tribune Review Keystone poll found 54 percent of Pennsylvanians strongly oppose losing the ability to elect judges.

Another option being considered is public financing of judicial elections.

---

Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts Statement

The state Constitution, state election laws and the Code of Judicial Conduct govern how judges are elected and reelected in Pennsylvania, how their campaigns must be conducted and what they must do if faced with conflicts of interest. None of these issues are under the control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or the chief justice.

Under the law, judicial candidates and candidates for retention are permitted by law to form campaign committees which can raise money for their campaigns.

All judges, once elected or reelected, are required by the Code of Judicial Conduct to hear every case with absolute neutrality, to rule fairly and to be "unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism."

Under the code, all judges are expected to disqualify themselves from any case in which their impartiality might be reasonably be questioned. Any party in any case, if concerned about an appearance of a conflict of interest, may ask the judge to disqualify him or herself.

---

Related Links:
More County News

Get RSS | E-Mail Alerts

---