HARRISBURG -- Four governors along with some state legislators, several pro-business organizations and a judicial reform group called Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts want to make a major change in the way Pennsylvania appellate judges are selected.

Armed with a new poll, these advocates want to shift from the method used for decades -- where voters elect judges of the Supreme, Commonwealth and Superior courts -- to a system called "merit selection," where the governor would select judges for those three courts based on recommendations from a 14-member commission. Judge nominees chosen by the governor would then have to be confirmed by the state Senate.

But one legislator, state Rep. Tom Caltagirone, is standing in the way of the change favored by Gov. Ed Rendell and former Govs. Tom Ridge, Mark Schweiker and Dick Thornburgh, along with state Sen. Jane Earll, R-Erie, state Rep. Matt Smith, D-Mt. Lebanon, and others.

Mr. Caltagirone, a Democrat from Reading, is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over a bill for merit selection of judges introduced by Mr. Smith. Mr. Caltagirone said Wednesday he likes the current system, where voters directly choose appeals court judges, and doesn't see any need to change.

The bill for merit selection "is going nowhere," he said emphatically. "I don't plan to bring it up (for a vote)."

He said that Missouri changed to a merit-selection system several years ago but now problems have arisen there and many people want to return to the old system of having citizens elect judges.

Mr. Rendell was joined in person Wednesday by Mr. Schweiker, and by phone by Mr. Ridge and Mr. Thornburgh, to urge the Legislature to approve the merit selection bill before the session ends Nov. 30. But first the bill has to get out of the Judiciary Committee, and that doesn't appear likely.

Switching to merit selection of judges would require a change to the state Constitution. That is a lengthy process, requiring a merit selection bill to be passed in two different sessions of the Legislature and then approved by voters in a statewide referendum.

If the current Legislature acts this year, and the new Legislature acts in early 2011, the question could be put on the May 2011 ballot.

Lynn Marks, director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, had a poll of 500 voters done, showing that 62 percent favored a switch to merit selection of appellate court judges. (Common Pleas judges would still be elected by voters). The poll also showed that 93 percent of the respondents think people should get the chance to vote in a statewide referendum on whether merit selection should be used.

Advocates of merit selection said it would remove the "negative effect" of campaign funds in the election of judges. They noted that $4.7 million was spent in the election for a Supreme Court seat last year by the two candidates, Republican Joan Orie Melvin (who won) and Democrat Jack Panella. Reform advocates contend that judicial candidates shouldn't be in the uncomfortable position of seeking campaign funds from lawyers who appear before them.

But Mr. Caltagirone likes having voters directly elect judges. He disagreed with the claim that most voters didn't know the qualifications of appellate court candidates. He said the candidates travel all over the state meeting voters, and newspapers print detailed reports on their backgrounds and qualifications.

A "merit selection" process "comes down to one person, a governor, making the final selection," he said. "I would rather have the people decide."

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.