The Philadelphia Bar Association and its Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention are troubled by the June 10 guest commentary of Bob Brady, chairman of the Democratic City Committee, which leveled uninformed criticisms at a process that it appears he may not understand. Rather than reaching out to discuss and work through his concerns, Mr. Brady chose to share incorrect information with the media through an open letter in the Citizen and to disseminate a similar letter to others, including members of the Philadelphia judiciary.
Our Judicial Commission for the past 40 years has provided nonpartisan ratings of judicial candidates based on a series of established criteria to inform voters as to which candidates have the skill set needed to perform their duties well. These skills-based criteria range from trial experience to temperament, legal ability, character, integrity, financial responsibility and a manifest dedication to the improvement of the quality of justice, among others.
Contrary to Mr. Brady’s misconception, the Judicial Commission’s focus is not to assess ballot eligibility under state and municipal statutes and regulations; that is left to ballot challenges and litigation as appropriate. Nor does the Judicial Commission consider party loyalty, or those who contribute to a political party or even ballot position— which used to be the primary indicator of success, before the Commission’s highly-respected ratings were publicized by the Bar Association’s Campaign for Qualified Judges.
The 36-member Commission, which is made up of attorneys and laypeople who live and/or work in Philadelphia, oversees more than a hundred volunteers spending countless hours interviewing sources, scouring court dockets, briefs and transcripts, and meeting with candidates before the Judicial Commission issues its objective ratings, which are made publicly available as a service to voters. Mr. Brady’s own ward leaders often invite representatives from the Campaign for Qualified Judges to talk about our process prior to endorsing candidates.
The Judicial Commission’s merit-based ratings are not tethered to any political endorsements. On the other hand, it reflects poorly on a political party when that party endorses a candidate whose lack of trial experience, lack of financial responsibility or inappropriate behavior, for example, have led the Judicial Commission to assign a “Not Recommended” rating.
The Judicial Commission’s merit-based ratings are not tethered to any political endorsements.
Thankfully, it has been the exception rather than the rule in recent years that the Democratic City Committee has advanced candidates who have not been recommended by the Judicial Commission, and for good reason: In the past four election cycles, Philadelphia voters have elected only those judicial candidates to the Court of Common Pleas that were Recommended or Highly Recommended by the Bar Association. We are proud of that record and are grateful to voters for their confidence in our process.
Mr. Brady is correct that the Judicial Commission found that candidate Michael Huff met all 11 criteria set forth in the Judicial Commission’s guidelines, which are publicly available on the Bar Association’s website, and issued a corresponding recommendation. He neglects to mention that he himself acknowledged in a recent interview that Mr. Huff was otherwise qualified to be a judge. In any event, as the Philadelphia Citizen already noted, the Bar Association’s Judicial Commission removed Mr. Huff’s “Recommended” rating once the Commonwealth Court determined, after a hearing, that even if Mr. Huff resided in Philadelphia, he failed to demonstrate that he intended to live in Philadelphia permanently, based on a new standard articulated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in response to Huff’s appeal, and thus could not be on the ballot.
Mr. Brady’s suggestion that the Judicial Commission does not value diversity is clearly negated by a review of our recommendations, found on our Judicial Commission’s rating page. The Judicial Commission sees no disconnect between diversity and highly qualified candidates, and through this process has advanced both goals effectively. Indeed, the Judicial Commission added sensitivity to diversity, equity and inclusion as the 11th criterion for assessing candidates and has made other enhancements in recent years to include more diverse voices on the Judicial Commission. We are not involved in the process of recruiting candidates, however. Each candidate’s merits are evaluated individually, and we do not limit the number of recommendations to equal the number of judicial vacancies.
As for Mr. Brady’s attempt to disparage our Judicial Commission Chair and his family through false innuendo, such tactics are not worthy of discussion. Our Chair is a highly respected member of the Philadelphia legal community as well as a distinguished former chancellor of the Bar Association. Our Chair has proven throughout his tenure that he will not bend to political intimidation and has served our Bar Association and the Judicial Commission admirably.
Our Judicial Commission now turns its focus to the critical role of ensuring that qualified judges are retained in November.
Katayun I. Jaffari is the 98th chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association.
The Citizen welcomes guest commentary from community members who represent that it is their own work and their own opinion based on true facts that they know firsthand.
COVERAGE OF THE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS AND THE CANDIDATES
