OK, look at this list of names: Thomas Saylor, Max Baer, Debra Todd, Christine Donohue, David Wecht and Kevin Dougherty. Who are these people? If you're old enough, you might be tempted to say that Max Baer is a former heavyweight boxer or Jethro on "The Beverly Hillbillies." Bzzzt! Wrong. David Wecht, wasn't he once a famous coroner who shows up a lot on TV? Bzzzt! Wrong. You're thinking of Cyril Wecht.

You probably don't have a clue. Well, don't worry; you are not alone. Few others do either. They are six of the seven members of Pennsylvania's Supreme Court. Some of you voted for them in recent elections, even though you didn't know who they were. Three of them - Donohue, Wecht and Dougherty - were on last fall's General Election ballot. The seventh member of the court is Thomas Eakin, whose name you might have heard recently because he has been suspended for sending and receiving inappropriate emails. He faces a hearing March 29 on these charges.The Eakin quagmire is the last straw. It makes a strong case that we need to select our appellate judges by merit, not through the current partisan political process, which has given us terrible results.Pennsylvania's highest court has been shaken to its core by scandal. First, in 2013, Justice Joan Orie Melvin was convicted of using court staffers to do her electioneering. Common Pleas Judge Lester Nauhaus sentenced Melvin to three years of house arrest and two years of probation. He also ordered Melvin to write apology letters to every judge in the state on a picture of herself in handcuffs. An appeals court upheld the letter-writing but ruled it didn't have to be on the photograph. So, last year, Melvin sent a three-paragraph letter, personally addressed to each judge. She resigned her position in disgrace and was disbarred in late 2014, meaning she is unlikely to practice her chosen profession ever again.Then, in 2015, Justice Seamus McCaffery resigned rather than go through the legal gantlet that was sure to come after it was disclosed that he was corresponding in pornographic emails while on the job.Few of us choose state appellate court candidates for legitimate reasons, nor is it likely that we know how they stand on important issues. There's a good reason why we don't know, too, because judicial canons prevent these candidates from disclosing their positions on key issues, because these issues might come before them if they are elected. This means their previously stated views could be seen as prejudicial and could compromise a case before the courts.So, how do we choose which candidate to vote for? It might be because of the candidate's political party. All three Democrats won last fall, besting the three Republican candidates. Many believed that voters punished the Republicans since Melvin, McCaffery and Eakin are all Republicans.When seeing this list of unrecognizable names before us when we pull the curtain in the voting booth, voters are left to pick on the basis of party, gender, geography, ethnicity or whether someone has a "cool" - or a "not-so-cool" - sounding name.Three former Pennsylvania governors last month urged state legislators to enact a bill that would end the partisan election of judges in all three appeals courts - Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth.We couldn't agree more.Tom Ridge, Ed Rendell and Mark Schweiker told reporters in a statewide conference call that the six Supreme Court candidates last year spent a record $16 million trying to win over the electorate."Judges must be independent, and judicial independence is one of the hallmarks of our democracy," Rendell said. "Judges can't be independent if they have to raise that kind of money."Rendell, a Democrat, suggested Pennsylvania join 43 other states and the federal government in naming judges through a bipartisan, ethically charged merit selection committee to bring forth the strongest candidates. In federal courts, the president of the United States nominates judges with the approval of the U.S. Senate. Rendell said scandal involving federal judges is virtually nonexistent.Schweiker, a Republican, said recent polls show that 76 percent of Pennsylvanians believe judges are heavily influenced by politics and campaigning.There is bipartisan support for a bill pending in the state House, according to Ridge, a Republican. The bill proposes a system where candidates would apply to a bipartisan commission, which would review their qualifications and recommend a short list to the governor. The governor would nominate one of the recommended candidates. After Senate confirmation, a judge would serve a four-year term, then stand in a nonpartisan retention election for subsequent 10-year terms. Voters would either choose "yes" if they wanted the judge to continue or "no" if they didn't.Here comes the hard part: The bill requires changing the state Constitution. The proposal must be passed in two consecutive legislative sessions, then go before voters for approval. So, where do we stand? The bill, which passed the House Judiciary Committee, has been tabled, but supporters of the bill believe this is because of the record-breaking budget impasse, not because of opposition to the bill.Nothing is perfect, and even if the way we pick our appellate court justices changes it won't mean that there won't be hiccups here and there. We believe, however, that the merit system is infinitely superior to our current system. That said, we also believe that local judges who serve on county courts of common pleas should still be elected by the people, because these courts are closest to the electorate, and the qualifications of these candidates are more likely to be known by prospective voters.By Bruce Frassinelli |

tneditor@tnonline.com