The first state constitution was created in 1776, shortly after the country declared its independence from Great Britain.
[3] After heated debate over the issue, it was decided that the Pennsylvania governor would appoint state judges and justices.
In the age of President Andrew Jackson, there was a movement within the state, and country, that all government positions should be held accountable to the will of the people, i.e. the voters.
[4] However, it did not have enough votes to make any substantial change; the tenure for Supreme Court justices was reduced, though, from life to fifteen years.
Because of this, there was another statewide vote that spring, in which the results were much closer, but still held that people wanted to elect their judges rather than having the governor appoint them.
As of 2015, the Brennan Center for Justice lists 16 states in which the high court judges are appointed by the governor and reselected in unopposed retention elections, 15 states in which the high court judges are selected in contested nonpartisan elections, and 7 states in which the high court judges are selected in contested partisan elections.
The number of courts and judges are established by the Pennsylvania Constitution and law originating from the General Assembly in Harrisburg.
[9] Due, among other factors, to Pennsylvania having an overwhelming number of male governors, there were few to no women in the court system.
[10] The people of Pennsylvania are more likely to elect women to serve as judges and justices than male governors were to appoint them.
[11] The two main disadvantages often argued to counter the affirmative viewpoint is the palpable corruption within the Pennsylvania judicial system and the problems which arise from integrating politics and law, which the state founders warned against.
[12] Three separate judges, all having been elected to the Court of Common Pleas, have been involved in scandals while in office in the past ten years[when?]
The increasing political emphasis on these elections, as well as the cases of corruption, are beginning to convince the population that the old system was both better for the state and more efficient.