The Joplin Globe’s editorial (March 11) represents the views of many of Missouri’s largest businesses and does so for very good reasons. Current efforts to cripple the Missouri Plan and hand over Missouri courts to politicians, special interests and political consultants are found in Senate Resolution 9 and House Resolution 10 being pushed this year in the Missouri General Assembly.

These proposals are in many ways more sinister and damaging to our justice system than judicial elections because the public will not be able to ascertain what political donations or political deals were made by politicians or paid political consultants to place their hand-picked people in judicial office.

If the systems proposed were to become law, Missouri would plunge its courts back into the days of Boss Pendergast and his cronies who controlled court decisions. All we have to do is look at the disastrous consequences of “special interest” judges in other states.

The line “common sense often makes good law,” is attributed to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Details surrounding the West Virginia case Caperton v. Massey, argued March 3 before the U.S. Supreme Court, display a serious lack of common sense in judicial independence and selection procedures. The CEO of A.T. Massey Coal Co. spent $3 million to elect lawyer Brent Benjamin to the state Supreme Court, while Massey Coal was appealing a $50 million jury award against it. Even after repeated requests from the petitioners, Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself, instead casting the deciding vote to overturn the $50 million judgment. When large amounts of campaign spending are involved, integrity of the judicial process is readily questioned.

A fair and impartial judicial system matters to business and to economic development. All citizens have a stake in this system and should support reforming the way our state judges are selected to be more in line with The Missouri Plan. The independence of our judicial system is critical to a functioning democracy and the rule of law. The escalation of large financial contributions to judicial campaigns undermines these principles. When candidates for the bench feel compelled to solicit campaign donations from parties that may have business before their court (as well as support from political parties and special interests with ideological agendas), there exists — at the very least — an appearance of corruption. The more politics plays a role in judicial selection, the more lawyers, business organizations and interest groups feel compelled to enter the competition to elect the judges most favorable to their positions.

In today’s economy, major corporations generally operate in every state. Methods of judicial selection can have a major effect on local business transactions. Plaintiffs can choose the state court that will be most favorable to them and business can stop selling products in a particular state that entails a higher litigation risk. The costs of these transactions affect employers, employees and consumers.

Business leaders should take a good look at the Missouri Plan. Since 1940, the State of Missouri has had a merit selection system in which potential judicial candidates are identified by nonpartisan commissions, rather than through donor-driven political campaigns. Three candidates are sent to the governor for approval. If the governor fails to choose one, the committee does. Voters pass judgment on these appointments, through periodic yes-or-no retention elections in which they decide whether judges should stay on the bench. In a 2007 poll, 71 percent of Missourians voiced approval of the Missouri Plan and of the judiciary selected under its provisions.

Twenty-four states use this commission process to choose their Supreme Courts, and five others use different nonpartisan appointive systems. These systems have minimized politics on the bench and have enabled judges to focus on the law, not fund-raising or electoral politics.

States with the Missouri Plan have a legal climate more conducive to economic growth and prosperity. Also, according to the 2008 U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey of state liability rankings, the five worst states all choose justices through competitive elections. The five best states all have appointed Supreme Courts. West Virginia, where the Caperton v. Massey mess occurred, ranks dead last.

Caperton v. Massey may very well be a turning point in stimulating business to be more vocal about the need to support judicial selection reform in the states to eliminate judicial elections and the influence of money and politics as contained in the Senate and House resolutions. The current economic crisis has companies and financial institutions struggling to regain the public trust. We have to ensure that our legal system is above reproach. Supporting judicial independence and selection reform to follow Missouri’s lead is a clear-cut opportunity for business leaders to do the right thing.

Landon Rowland is chairman emeritus of the Janus Capital Group. He is also a trustee of the Committee for Economic Development, a non-profit, non-partisan business-led public policy organization. He lives in Kansas City.