Just as Sisyphus was doomed to keep pushing that same stone up the mountain again and again, reformers who want to change the way Pennsylvania judges are chosen keep waging an uphill campaign.

Unlike the mythological Greek who toiled in punishment, though, the advocates for merit selection of judges have found a new way to try to move their idea forward.

Advocates, led by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, are correct in arguing that judges should not be chosen in elections. Being a judge is different from being a state legislator or a school board member, for instance. A judge is charged with making decisions based on evidence and the law, not on the basis of the popular opinion of those who cast ballots. Expertise should be required.

Then there's the challenge of paying for those election campaigns. Running statewide judicial races is particularly expensive, especially in a state as expansive as Pennsylvania. Candidates for state Supreme Court spent a record $7.85 million in 2007, including large sums from special-interest groups. And a survey by the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that, when judges are chosen in partisan elections, people have less confidence in the judiciary.

So what's different about this latest effort to amend the state constitution so Pennsylvania can switch from elections to merit selection of judges?

For one thing, reform agendas in Harrisburg no longer are falling on deaf ears, given the voter outrage toward abuses of the recent past.

Unlike some of the other proposals that have been floated in the last three decades, this one is aimed at only appellate courts -- Commonwealth, Superior and Supreme -- not county common pleas courts.

And the latest initiative calls for creating a 14-member public commission to screen applicants for the bench. Prior proposals gave elected officials the sole power to appoint the panelists, but this one requires five of the members to be picked by civic groups, unions and business, public safety and nonlawyer professional organizations. The commission's recommendations for judgeships would go to the governor and face confirmation by the Senate, with the new jurists facing their first retention election in four years.

If the Legislature acts before its summer recess, then passes the measure again in the new session next year, voters could have their say on how future appellate court judges should be selected by November 2009, in the form of a statewide referendum.

This remedy could go a long way toward getting money and politics out of the courtroom. Now's the time for the state House and Senate to move on it.