A court reform group says the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shouldn’t let a judge under investigation serve on the bench.  The news first came from the Tribune-Review – state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin was subpoenaed in December by the same grand jury that charged her sisters with political corruption.

The probe alleged that Melvin’s sister, Republican state Senator Jane Orie of Allegheny County, used her state staff for political work.  

Shira Goodman, with the Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts reform group, said Melvin should temporarily step down from the bench. 

“We don’t think she needs to totally give up her seat and create a full vacancy on the court,” said Goodman, “but we think that now that it’s been reported that she has received a target letter and is a target of the grand jury, it really undermines her ability to sit in judgment of other people.”

Melvin has recused herself from deciding criminal cases involving the Allegheny County prosecutor who argued the case against her sister.

“We don’t think it’s enough,” said Goodman.  “I think she would still be weighing in on very important questions that affect all Pennsylvanians from family matters to business questions to possibly the redistricting case and we don’t need a cloud.  We don’t need questions about whether a judge is legitimately should be there or not.”

If Melvin were to step down, six judges would be left to decide the upcoming cases involving appeals to the state legislative redistricting plans.  The scheduled court date for oral arguments is January 23.  If there were a tied vote, the redistricting appeal would fail. 

The Melvin investigation sheds some light on a judicial selection process that Goodman said is flawed.

“We have a system that treats judges like politicians.  They have to get party endorsements, they have to raise money, they have to curry favor with special interest groups to be able to run and succeed in a 67 county state,” she said.

“The fact that they’re… investigating alleged improprieties in how people adhere to election rules just shows that judges and election politics and election fundraising shouldn’t mix,” Goodman continued.  “Our judges should be insulated from that.”