A proposal for merit selection of statewide appellate court judges has been introduced in the state Legislature &tstr; again.

This time, the measure is authored by, among others, State Rep. Brian Cutler, a Republican from Peach Bottom.

In touting the measure, Cutler is singing a familiar tune. (Actually, it's getting to sound a bit like a broken record.)

"Merit selection has a strong history in our nation and works well in many other jurisdictions. It produces exceptionally qualified candidates who represent the diverse nature of our society," Cutler says.

The lawmaker says the steps involved in merit selection "ensure that the best candidates are selected for our appellate courts.

What are those steps?

As with past proposals, Cutler's would require a constitutional amendment and would apply to three appellate courts: Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth courts.

If approved by voters, the amendment would create a 15-member citizens-based Appellate Court Nominating Commission.

The panel would screen judicial candidates and develop a short list of nominees that would be presented to the governor.

Following nomination by the governor and confirmation by the state Senate, the judge would serve an initial term of four years and then would stand before voters in a nonpartisan retention election.

Voters would decide at that point &tstr; and every 10 years after that &tstr; whether the judge should remain on the bench.

The particulars vary somewhat from previous proposals, but they essentially are the same in ones that go back to at least the administration of Gov. Dick Thornburgh.

This time, though, may be different.

Many people are growing ever more concerned about the increasingly expensive and partisan elections. Also, the Luzerne County "kids for cash" scandal cast a long shadow over the Pennsylvania judiciary.

A 2010 poll by Public Opinion Strategies found that 75 percent of respondents believe that campaign contributions can influence decisions that judges make in the courtroom.

The same poll found that 93 percent would like the opportunity to vote on whether to change how we select appellate court judges.

Not everyone likes the idea of merit selection, believing it would disenfranchise voters. But few can argue that voters cast an informed vote when it comes to selecting appellate court judges. This is due, in large part, because candidates are limited by judicial ethics in what they can say during political campaigns. This often reduces the campaigns to generalities, niceties and sound bites.

Voters deserve better from the statewide judiciary, and merit selection of judges could be a way to accomplish it.