Oct 9, 2006 3 min read

Every so often, someone comes along with an idea so good, so logical, so practical that you find yourself saying, “This makes such perfect sense, who could be against it?” Such is the case with a platform for reforming the Pennsylvania Supreme Court crafted by Duquesne University law professor Bruce Ledewitz. A key focus of Ledewitz’ suggested reforms deals with transparency in how the court operates. This has nothing to do with how it decides a particular case. Instead, its components deal with how the state’s highest court conducts other business, on matters that should be carried out in the light of day.

First off, Ledewitz wants to end the court’s practice of holding private meetings with state legislators. That’s exactly what Chief Justice Ralph Cappy did when hatching last year’s pay raise. In doing so, Cappy crossed the demarcation of powers line so badly that he had to recuse himself when a lawsuit challenging the pay raise wound up in his court’s lap. “Whatever a justice has to say to government officials should be said in public,” is how Ledewitz’ proposal puts it. Who could quibble with that concept?

Ledewitz, an expert on the Pennsylvania constitution, also thinks the Supreme Court should either follow the state’s Open Meeting Law, or adopt an equivalent, so that its rule-making activity is debated and adopted in public view. “Law should not be made in secret in a democracy,” is how the proposal puts it. Who can disagree?

Thirdly, Ledewitz wants to eliminate nepotism and cronyism by making the court select its committee appointees from lists of nominees submitted by independent bodies, such as the Pennsylvania Bar Association. To see why this needs done, look no further than the court-appointed Judicial Conduct Board, which is chaired by the brother of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Newman and includes relatives of Newman and of Supreme Court Justice Max Baer. Is you filed a conduct case against either of them, how good would you feel about getting an independent verdict?

Ledewitz also wants judicial freedom of information, to rectify the complete lack of standards governing release of documents from the court. For example, when Cappy sent out a memo last year calling for stricter accounting rules regarding justice’s expense accounts, the court spokesman refused to release a copy to the public. What’s the big secret there?

Ledewitz has 11 other suggestions, including one that would require justices to publish opinions when deciding cases, as unpublished opinions clearly do a disservice to the democratic process. All of his common-sense reforms serve one purpose: To make the judiciary more transparent, accountable and effective. In an era when reform in Harrisburg is a hot-button issue, citizens should pay close attention to Ledewitz’ proposals for reforming the high court.