(Missouri Digital News) -- On Nov. 6 Missouri voters will have the option to change the way top Missouri judges are selected.
Missouri Constitutional Amendment 3 is the culmination of a multi-year effort by a St. Louis County lawmaker to change the judicial nominating process.
The Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan has been in place for more than 70 years as a way to eliminate partisanship in the selection of judges in Missouri. The intent of the plan is to have judges selected based on merit instead of political affiliation.
The plan is in charge of selecting judges to the state Supreme Court and Appeals Court. It also applies to lower level courts in St. Louis City and Jackson County. Greene, St. Louis, Clay and Platte counties have adopted variations of the plan to select judges.
The current system removes appellate level judges from having to campaign in partisan elections. Nominees for state appeals court and Supreme Court judges are selected by a seven-member panel composed of three gubernatorial appointees, three lawyers selected by the Missouri Bar Association and the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
"The original Constitution had the proper checks, and currently there is no check on the judicial branch of government as far as how we choose judges to the highest court. The Missouri Plan is currently controlled by one special interest group -- the trail attorneys," said Sen. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis.
Lembke sponsored the amendment in the General Assembly.
The proposed change would eliminate the chief justice from the panel and give the governor four appointees to the commission instead of three, which would make his appointees the majority.
Lynn Whaley Vogel, president of the Missouri Bar Association, said there is no reason to amend the plan because it has served as a model for other states to eliminate partisanship.
Showing posts with label Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. Show all posts
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Committee of former judges opposes Amendment 3
(Missouri Digital News) -- A group of former state Supreme Court judges spoke out Thursday, Aug. 23, against a ballot measure that would change the selection process for Missouri's top judges.
The amendment, approved by state lawmakers during the last legislative session, would give the governor the power to appoint a majority of the commission members tasked with selecting nominees for non-partisan judgeships.
Retired Supreme Court Justice William Ray Price said supporters of the amendment are attempting to "concentrate power" in the executive branch, in order to buy judicial appointments.
"What they really are trying to do is concentrate power in one political office that they can affect by big money contributions. They aught to be honest and say that's what's going on. They want to be able to buy judicial appointments like they try and buy everything else in Jefferson City," he said.
Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Saint Louis County, who sponsored the amendment, said it will give the executive branch the power to properly check the judicial branch.
"This idea that the current system is not political is a fallacy. It is political, except it's just controlled by a very small group of Missourians," Lembke said.
The amendment, approved by state lawmakers during the last legislative session, would give the governor the power to appoint a majority of the commission members tasked with selecting nominees for non-partisan judgeships.
Retired Supreme Court Justice William Ray Price said supporters of the amendment are attempting to "concentrate power" in the executive branch, in order to buy judicial appointments.
"What they really are trying to do is concentrate power in one political office that they can affect by big money contributions. They aught to be honest and say that's what's going on. They want to be able to buy judicial appointments like they try and buy everything else in Jefferson City," he said.
Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Saint Louis County, who sponsored the amendment, said it will give the executive branch the power to properly check the judicial branch.
"This idea that the current system is not political is a fallacy. It is political, except it's just controlled by a very small group of Missourians," Lembke said.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Petition to Repeal Nonpartisan Court Plan gets Cool Local Reception
An initiative petition circulating around the state that would repeal the current Nonpartisan Court Plan has met with a cool local reception. The petition would place a measure on the ballot that, if approved, would replace the current nonpartisan system for selecting judges with a partisan system in which judges would be elected by party similar to other statewide officeholders. Judges of the Supreme Court and the district Courts of Appeals would serve eight years instead of the current 12.
The measure would also change the way in which judges are appointed. Currently, the statewide Nonpartisan Judicial Commission submits three nominees to the governor, who will choose one of the three. Should the governor fail to do so within sixty days, the commission would appoint one of the nominees to serve on the bench. The ballot initiative would have the governor appoint judicial nominees to fill vacancies with the advise and consent of the Senate. Confirmed nominees would fill positions until December 31st following the next general election after the expiration of twelve months in the office. Governors would be able to make recess appointments, but these appointments would terminate if the advise and consent of the Senate is not given within thirty days after the senate has convened in regular or special session.
Beginning after November 2, 2010, judges of the supreme court whose terms expire shall be replaced by individuals elected by the voters eligible to vote within the state. Each such duly elected individual shall be entitled to serve for the term prescribed. Nothing shall prevent judges of the supreme court who were appointed under a previous method of judicial selection or appointed to fill a vacancy from seeking election to the supreme court. Currently, judges are appointed and then retained by a yes or no vote of the people.
The petition relaxes the restrictions on political activities by judges. Under the initiative, a judge or judicial candidate may announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues provided that the judge or judicial candidate does not make pledges or promises to render specific rulings or decisions on pending litigation. Judicial candidates and judges who are judicial candidates shall be allowed to solicit, receive and make campaign contributions, and make and receive the benefit of campaign expenditures, as may be provided by law.
The petition is being pushed by a group called "Better Courts for Missouri." On the front page of their website, they describe themselves as "...a coalition of Missourians from all walks of life, dedicated to fixing the method by which Missouri judges are selected. The judges on our highest courts make decisions that profoundly affect every Missourian. Everything from jobs and wages to health care and family values are affected by the powerful judges on those courts. That is why we are dedicated to ensuring that openness, accountability, independence, and excellence are represented in the Missouri Court Plan for selecting judges." They charge that "our highest courts have been under the influence of legal industry special interest groups for years," accusing "these groups" of "wanting nothing more than to take down our tort reform laws." Better Courts for Missouri accuses personal injury attorneys of encouraging courts to "strike down laws for their own financial benefit."
But the petition has met with a cool local reception. County Clerk Lisa Hargrave said that if judicial elections were to become partisan elections, it would lead to greatly increased costs for her office to count ballots, print paper, and advertise the election. "The system is not broken now, so why fix it," she asked. Commissioner Dennis Gabbert said that it would not improve the judicial system and that it would simply bring the level of judges down to political parties and popularity contests. Presiding Commissioner Kevin Austin noted that the State of Missouri just ended the political patronage system that had been used to select Department of Revenue offices for many years and that it wouldn't make sense to go to a partisan system. "We'll all pay more," added Commissioner Rob Ruckman.
Jerry Drake, who would be affected by the judges that he would argue before as a lawyer, said that he was not a fan of the current system, but that he was not convinced that the petition was any answer. The problem he saw with the current selection process was what he called the substitution of the power of a few for the electorate. Having dealt with elected judges on the local level, Drake said that "the judges you elect are no less motivated than that ones that you appoint." But he said that didn't mean that he was going to sign the petition. He said that his main concern was what he called the secrecy behind who was funding the petition. He added that he was concerned that the judiciary would become a tool of special interests who would simply taylor the courts to suit their agendas like they did the legislature. A former legislator, Drake said that the legislature was dominated by special interests and that he didn't want to see the judiciary go the same way.
State Senator Brad Lager, in e-mailed comments to the Sheridan Express, said that he thought the state didn't need to eliminate the court plan, but that some changes were needed that he said would make the court system actually non-partisan. First of all, Lager said that he wanted more common people on the commission than lawyers. He said that as things stood right now, the lawyers on the commission or their firms would end up practicing in front of the judges whom they help pick. He compared it to allowing the CEO's of all the energy companies to pick members of the Public Service Commission. "It is bad public policy and simply not good government," he said.
Other ideas for reform Lager said were needed included increasing the number of people on the panel sent to the Governor. He said that the Governor should be given power to reject a panel of nominees he didn't like, meaning that the commission would have to put forward a new slate. He also said that there needed to be more transparency in the process. "There is no reason that only select lawyers are allowed to know the nominees and learn about them in private closed-door sessions," said Lager in his comments.
Lager said that the state should open up the entire process, saying that all documents, lists, and interviews should be open to the press and public. And instead of letting the Missouri Bar Association pick the members of the Commission, Lager said that everyone nominated to the commission should stand for Senate confirmation, like other boards and commissions appointed by the governor.
The measure would also change the way in which judges are appointed. Currently, the statewide Nonpartisan Judicial Commission submits three nominees to the governor, who will choose one of the three. Should the governor fail to do so within sixty days, the commission would appoint one of the nominees to serve on the bench. The ballot initiative would have the governor appoint judicial nominees to fill vacancies with the advise and consent of the Senate. Confirmed nominees would fill positions until December 31st following the next general election after the expiration of twelve months in the office. Governors would be able to make recess appointments, but these appointments would terminate if the advise and consent of the Senate is not given within thirty days after the senate has convened in regular or special session.
Beginning after November 2, 2010, judges of the supreme court whose terms expire shall be replaced by individuals elected by the voters eligible to vote within the state. Each such duly elected individual shall be entitled to serve for the term prescribed. Nothing shall prevent judges of the supreme court who were appointed under a previous method of judicial selection or appointed to fill a vacancy from seeking election to the supreme court. Currently, judges are appointed and then retained by a yes or no vote of the people.
The petition relaxes the restrictions on political activities by judges. Under the initiative, a judge or judicial candidate may announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues provided that the judge or judicial candidate does not make pledges or promises to render specific rulings or decisions on pending litigation. Judicial candidates and judges who are judicial candidates shall be allowed to solicit, receive and make campaign contributions, and make and receive the benefit of campaign expenditures, as may be provided by law.
The petition is being pushed by a group called "Better Courts for Missouri." On the front page of their website, they describe themselves as "...a coalition of Missourians from all walks of life, dedicated to fixing the method by which Missouri judges are selected. The judges on our highest courts make decisions that profoundly affect every Missourian. Everything from jobs and wages to health care and family values are affected by the powerful judges on those courts. That is why we are dedicated to ensuring that openness, accountability, independence, and excellence are represented in the Missouri Court Plan for selecting judges." They charge that "our highest courts have been under the influence of legal industry special interest groups for years," accusing "these groups" of "wanting nothing more than to take down our tort reform laws." Better Courts for Missouri accuses personal injury attorneys of encouraging courts to "strike down laws for their own financial benefit."
But the petition has met with a cool local reception. County Clerk Lisa Hargrave said that if judicial elections were to become partisan elections, it would lead to greatly increased costs for her office to count ballots, print paper, and advertise the election. "The system is not broken now, so why fix it," she asked. Commissioner Dennis Gabbert said that it would not improve the judicial system and that it would simply bring the level of judges down to political parties and popularity contests. Presiding Commissioner Kevin Austin noted that the State of Missouri just ended the political patronage system that had been used to select Department of Revenue offices for many years and that it wouldn't make sense to go to a partisan system. "We'll all pay more," added Commissioner Rob Ruckman.
Jerry Drake, who would be affected by the judges that he would argue before as a lawyer, said that he was not a fan of the current system, but that he was not convinced that the petition was any answer. The problem he saw with the current selection process was what he called the substitution of the power of a few for the electorate. Having dealt with elected judges on the local level, Drake said that "the judges you elect are no less motivated than that ones that you appoint." But he said that didn't mean that he was going to sign the petition. He said that his main concern was what he called the secrecy behind who was funding the petition. He added that he was concerned that the judiciary would become a tool of special interests who would simply taylor the courts to suit their agendas like they did the legislature. A former legislator, Drake said that the legislature was dominated by special interests and that he didn't want to see the judiciary go the same way.
State Senator Brad Lager, in e-mailed comments to the Sheridan Express, said that he thought the state didn't need to eliminate the court plan, but that some changes were needed that he said would make the court system actually non-partisan. First of all, Lager said that he wanted more common people on the commission than lawyers. He said that as things stood right now, the lawyers on the commission or their firms would end up practicing in front of the judges whom they help pick. He compared it to allowing the CEO's of all the energy companies to pick members of the Public Service Commission. "It is bad public policy and simply not good government," he said.
Other ideas for reform Lager said were needed included increasing the number of people on the panel sent to the Governor. He said that the Governor should be given power to reject a panel of nominees he didn't like, meaning that the commission would have to put forward a new slate. He also said that there needed to be more transparency in the process. "There is no reason that only select lawyers are allowed to know the nominees and learn about them in private closed-door sessions," said Lager in his comments.
Lager said that the state should open up the entire process, saying that all documents, lists, and interviews should be open to the press and public. And instead of letting the Missouri Bar Association pick the members of the Commission, Lager said that everyone nominated to the commission should stand for Senate confirmation, like other boards and commissions appointed by the governor.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan Stands the Test of Time
On July 31st, Judge Stephen Limbaugh will leave his seat on the Supreme Court to accept his appointment to the federal bench. Our state courts will lose an excellent jurist. Because this is Missouri, we can be sure that Judge Limbaugh’s seat on the court will be filled by a highly qualified lawyer who will not be beholden to special interests or corporations. If this were Illinois or any of the 21 states that have contested elections for their state supreme courts, I could not say that.
In those states, voters have been barraged by demeaning political attack ads designed to destroy the opposing candidate’s credibility. Not only does the content of this type of ad encourage the public to think poorly of the targeted candidate, but the money behind the ads raises serious concerns. A 2007 Zogby survey showed that four in five business leaders worry that financial contributions have a major influence on decisions rendered by judges.
In contrast to these multimillion dollar judicial campaigns, Missouri has a better way of selecting judges to its appellate courts (and also for trial judges in St. Louis City as well as in Jackson, Clay, and Platte Counties). It is called the Non-Partisan Court Plan, and it consistently provides our state with excellent judges. The Plan is simple. Lawyers who want to serve as judges and who believe they are qualified submit their applications. A commission composed of lawyers and members of the public who are not lawyers review the applications, conducts interviews, and selects the top three candidates. The governor then fills the judicial opening by selecting the top candidate. After the new judge has served at least 12 months, the voters decide whether the Commission and the governor made a good pick by determining whether the judge should be retained.
No million dollar campaigns. No vicious attack ads. The Non-partisan Court Plan has served Missouri for nearly three quarters of a century, becoming a model for the nation. The beauty of the plan is that judicial candidates don’t have to curry favor of either political party or prowl about for campaign contributions. What judicial candidates do need are impeccable credentials, a strong understanding of the law, and the standing within the legal profession and their community to gain the trust and respect of others.
Because this is Missouri, the door is wide open to qualified lawyers and shuts out the worst excesses of partisan politics and special interest money.
In those states, voters have been barraged by demeaning political attack ads designed to destroy the opposing candidate’s credibility. Not only does the content of this type of ad encourage the public to think poorly of the targeted candidate, but the money behind the ads raises serious concerns. A 2007 Zogby survey showed that four in five business leaders worry that financial contributions have a major influence on decisions rendered by judges.
In contrast to these multimillion dollar judicial campaigns, Missouri has a better way of selecting judges to its appellate courts (and also for trial judges in St. Louis City as well as in Jackson, Clay, and Platte Counties). It is called the Non-Partisan Court Plan, and it consistently provides our state with excellent judges. The Plan is simple. Lawyers who want to serve as judges and who believe they are qualified submit their applications. A commission composed of lawyers and members of the public who are not lawyers review the applications, conducts interviews, and selects the top three candidates. The governor then fills the judicial opening by selecting the top candidate. After the new judge has served at least 12 months, the voters decide whether the Commission and the governor made a good pick by determining whether the judge should be retained.
No million dollar campaigns. No vicious attack ads. The Non-partisan Court Plan has served Missouri for nearly three quarters of a century, becoming a model for the nation. The beauty of the plan is that judicial candidates don’t have to curry favor of either political party or prowl about for campaign contributions. What judicial candidates do need are impeccable credentials, a strong understanding of the law, and the standing within the legal profession and their community to gain the trust and respect of others.
Because this is Missouri, the door is wide open to qualified lawyers and shuts out the worst excesses of partisan politics and special interest money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)