The Orie Melvin case continues to highlight the problems that result from electing judges. The entire case is a product of judicial elections: the Supreme Court justice is accused of illegal use of government resources for her campaigns for the Supreme Court. And now, as the Pittsburgh Tribune Review reports, in the midst of the Court of Judicial Discipline’s consideration of whether Justice Orie Melvin should continue to draw a pay check during her suspension, there is a question about the conflicts created for judges during judicial election campaigns. Justice Orie Melvin is charging that Judge Charles A. Clement, Jr. of the Court of Judicial Discipline should recuse from deciding her case because during her 2009
election campaign, he joined in a letter criticizing one of her campaign ads. Clement stated at the recent hearing that he believes he can be fair and impartial.
The question we really should be asking is why we persist in choosing our judges in such a way that creates multiple opportunities for conflicts of interest and appearances (and sometimes actual) biases. It doesn’t make sense and it’s time to find a better way.
