An editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer uses the case of a Philadelphia Traffic Court as evidence of the problems inherent in electing judges. Traffic Court Judge Willie Singletary is in trouble, and as the editorial points out, it’s not the first time.
Judge Singletary, who was already sentenced to a reprimand and probation by the Court of Judicial Discipline for violations during his campaign that included direct solicitation of contributions and seeming to promise favorable outcomes in exchange for donations, has now been escorted out of of Traffic Court following allegations that he showed naked pictures of himself to a City employee doing work related to Traffic Court. And, before he was elected to Traffic Court, Singletary had amassed huge traffic fines ($11,500) and had his driver’s license suspended. This history prompted the following observation by the Inquirer:
Beyond suggesting an ability to empathize with the plight of drivers in similar straits, Singletary’s resumé hardly stands as an endorsement for Pennsylvania’s system of electing judges. It’s also a condemnation of the vetting Best price on propecia process of the city’s dominant Democratic Party, to which many judicial candidates must pay fealty – and a hefty donation – for its help on Election Day.
We’ve long known that judicial elections reward fundraising prowess, campaign skill, and other attributes that are unrelated to one’s ability to serve as a judge. Pennsylvanians deserve a system of choosing judges that is designed to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the bench. Judicial elections are not the way.
