Few people in Pennsylvania know the names Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty or David Wecht. Fewer still know Alice Dubow or Michael Wojcik.

Despite most voters knowing nothing about them, they were just elected to the state Supreme Court, the Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court.

On Nov. 3, looking at the digital ballot for the courts, few people had a clue. Yet these judicial elections in Pennylvania were a big deal and made headlines.

The big news is that the supreme court race was the most expensive state supreme court contest in history. According to published reports, about $16 million was spent on advertising. Most of the ads were paid for by outside groups, not the candidates’ campaigns — and nearly all the ads were negative television ads, attacking other candidates.

One ad claimed a candidate for the high court “failed to protect women and children.” Another ad said a judge gave a light sentence to a man who raped a 3-year-old girl. Another said a supreme court candidate “placed a young girl in the custody of a convicted murderer.”

All of the judicial candidates are tainted by such negative ads. The nastiness of the ads and questions about the flood of special-interest money will remain.

To many people, the idea of judges running for election, asking for donations, promoting their Republican or Democrat credentials is unseemly. Civics class taught that judges are impartial, unbiased and obligated to make rulings based on the law.

Now we will have judges who owe their jobs to outside groups including labor unions, trial lawyers and others who could have issues before the Supreme Court. Will the judges be influenced by the millions of dollars spent to get them elected?

Judges can’t enjoy begging for campaign donations. And the public can’t be comfortable with judges appearing to be partisan and getting elected with money from special interests and outside groups.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Twenty four states have moved away from judicial elections and use merit selection to put judges on the highest court in the state. Still, Pennsylvania is not alone in electing top judges. More than 20 states have elections to select supreme court judges, with supporters saying it gives power to the voters. But it really doesn’t give power to the voters — it gives power to big money and special interests.

In Harrisburg, the most-expensive state Supreme Court race in history has renewed the debate over elected or appointed judges. State Rep. Bryan Cutler, R-Lancaster, has proposed a change that would create a bipartisan committee to review applications from judges. The committee would then make recommendations to the governor. Once the governor made his or her choice, the nominee would have to be confirmed by the state Senate. Then, after serving on the bench for four years, the appointed judges would have to face voters, and again every 10 years after that for retention.

Making the change from judicial elections is not easy, despite appearing to be the best way to remove the taint of big money from the state courts. The solution proposed by state Rep. Cutler, will require an amendment to the state Consitution, which means approval by two consecutive legislative sessions, then approval by voters.

Given that Democrats won all the top court spots, a Republican effort to move to a merit system might get little help from the other side of the aisle. But Democrats must know there will be a time when the tables are turned, when they are outspent and Republican judges win big.

Both parties must know that switching from elections to a merit-based system for selecting top judges is the best way to take money and politics out of the state courts. They should start the process now by advancing Rep. Cutler’s legislation.