JOPLIN, Mo. —
On Nov. 6, every voter in the state will be voting on ballot language that seeks to make a major change in the way judges are selected in this state.
For more than 70 years, Missourians have selected their Supreme Court and appellate judges through a process now known as “The Missouri Plan.”
As you probably know, this system, approved by voters statewide when it was adopted, provides that whenever a vacancy occurs for a judge at that level, a judicial nominating commission interviews interested applicants and picks three of them as judicial nominees. The governor then selects the new judge from one of those three nominees.
This plan has been so successful that more than 30 other states have adopted this process, or a similar process, to name their judges. In addition, the three largest metropolitan areas of the state have adopted this plan for their trial-level judges. It’s a system that works. It provides checks and balances that limit any group of politicians from handpicking judges and instead provides a method where judges in our state are selected based on their credentials. Professional skills are more important than political cronyism.
Once appointed, these judges are regularly evaluated by lawyers and members of the public who serve as jurors, and the ratings they receive are publicized by The Missouri Bar so that voters, who are asked whether they should be retained, can focus on their skills and work, not on the money they may be spending to campaign for the office.
Indeed, the Supreme Court a few years ago opened up the selection process further, now making the names of the applicants for these positions a public record and offering public interviews as part of the selection process. Members of the public are always welcome to send letters to the nominating commission or to the governor to express their opinion about a candidate.
What is especially important for the public to understand is that members of the selection commission are lawyers and nonlawyers, from different parts of the state, and have staggered terms such that they are not necessarily of the same political party as the governor. This keeps the process apolitical, and as a result Missouri has been blessed with years of scandal-free judiciary.
A proposed ballot change would eliminate part of the process set out above. While the lawyers on the commission would remain, there would now be four members appointed by the governor and they will not be required to be nonlawyers. The term they serve will be changed; in short, within two years of being elected governor, he or she would have a majority of the seven votes on this commission.
This is not a good idea. The repercussions would be significant. You may see negative advertising and, possibly, multimillion dollar judicial campaigns. Of greater concern to me, personally, is whether judges who must raise money to pay for these campaigns will need to take large contributions to make this happen. Would that mean only the large firms, who would have access to more discretionary funds than a small firm, like The Maneke Law Group, find themselves making these large contributions? And if they did, what would that do to the perception of impartiality a judge has when someone from a small firm goes up against a member of one of these large firms that has contributed significant funds to his or her campaign? How could a judge not help but feel somewhat indebted to those who had helped him or her win a heated campaign?
Negative campaigning has significantly affected the way many in the public feel about the entire political process. So far, this taint has not reached our court system. But I fear that if this proposal passes, the days of faith in our judicial system will fade.
Jean Maneke, of Kansas City, is the attorney for Missouri Press Association members and a frequent commentator on open-government issues. She is with The Maneke Law Group.
Opinion
Jean Maneke, guest columnist: Missouri Plan remains best way to select judges
- Opinion
-
-
Our View: Safer schools
Being able to see for ourselves what would have happened to our children had they been standing in the main hall of their schools during the May 22, 2011, tornado had a profound effect on our understanding of safe schools.
-
Marilyn Beasley, guest columnist: Claiming responsibility for abuse of power
Over the past few months we’ve witnessed the abuse of power by President Barack Obama and his administration.
-
Our View: ‘Why?’ has no answer
Just hours before, there was breakfast and laughter. There were pictures on the walls and memories in every room.
-
Our View: Absent from House
We can’t figure out why two Missouri legislators think they should be elected to the U.S. House when it appears they can’t seem to show up to take care of business in the Missouri House.
-
Your View: Terrorism is terrorism
In the May 13 issue of The Joplin Globe there was an Associated Press article concerning the New Orleans shooting.
-
Your View: Terrible injustice
I see this Jasper County nuisance law as a terrible injustice on the rights of the residents of Jasper County.
-
Your View: Should we be outraged?
Were there effusive apologies following the lockdown of Boston as most of the continent indulged vicariously in the ongoing manhunt?
-
Phill Brooks, columnist: Missouri Senate did what Founding Fathers had in mind
George Washington once described the Senate as being like a saucer in which you pour coffee or tea.
-
Other Views: Conflicts in SEC
Money talks. In the continuing dispute over the all-too-cozy relationship between the people who create and sell financial products and the people who rate their risk, the money says: Shut up and let us do what we want.
-
Our View: Fixing failure
Some 1,200 injured workers will finally get the payments they are owed. In its final week in session, Missouri’s General Assembly, through bipartisan efforts, passed a solution to address the insolvency of the state’s Second Injury Fund.
- More Opinion Headlines
-



