Missouri's system for picking judges isn't broken

Thursday, November 5, 2009 | 11:38 a.m. CST; updated 2:27 p.m. CST, Thursday, November 12, 2009

Some ideas are so outrageously, irredeemably bad that you just know they won’t go away. One of the worst is the recurring effort to destroy Missouri’s non-partisan plan for picking judges.

Its latest eruption was the little-noticed filing of an initiative petition that would replace that 70-year-old system with direct election of all judges. Another petition, previously submitted to the secretary of state’s office by the same front man, would give the governor the power of direct appointment.

Why would anybody want to dump a system that is admired and copied nationally, and that has functioned without scandal since it was introduced in 1940? In two words: ideology and money.

You may recall that in last year’s legislative session a joint resolution to gut the Missouri Plan, as it is known, got through the House but died in the Senate. You may even recall the recent Kansas City Star investigation that revealed that the litigious Humphreys family of Joplin poured $250,000 into Republican coffers immediately after that House action. The middle man for the largesse was Rod Jetton, the former speaker of the House.

Another clue may be that the front man for the euphemistically named Better Courts for Missouri is James Harris, a lobbyist and political advertising operator who used to be appointments secretary to our Boy Governor. In states without our plan, campaigns for Supreme Court seats typically cost millions, most of it spent on attack ads.

I was reminded of all this Tuesday morning, when I attended a breakfast meeting of university retirees to hear Skip Walther, president of the Missouri Bar Association, explain the assault and the importance of repelling it again.

Skip described the non-partisan court plan and traced its history. The Kansas City Star played a big part in that, too, as the paper campaigned against the Pendergast political machine that had come to control the elected appeals courts in the 1930s. Amazing, isn’t it, how often journalism turns out to be a force for good?

The non-partisan system covers judges of our Supreme Court, courts of appeals and the circuit courts in St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield. In the other, more rural, counties – including the circuit that includes Boone and Callaway – we elect our judges. We have 11 of them, including associates who handle lesser offenses.

(Greene County, which includes Springfield, just switched to this plan last year, out of public dismay at the increasing politicization and high cost of the election campaigns. Skip noted that the Chamber of Commerce endorsed the change, while John Ashcroft opposed it.)

Under the merit plan, applicants for judgeships are screened by a seven-member selection commission. The commission recommends three candidates to the governor, who makes the appointments.

Part of the opposition to that system is that lawyers play a big part. Four of the seven commission members come from the Missouri Bar. The other three are appointed by the governor. Makes sense to me. Judges have to be lawyers, and who better to evaluate their peers than other lawyers?


A bigger reason for the push to change, I suspect, is that we wind up with judges who aren’t sufficiently conservative to satisfy the right-wingers.

Skip pointed out that the Missouri Plan has been copied, in whole or part, by 34 other states. Public opinion polls show that Missouri judges are held in higher esteem than legislators, lawyers or journalists. Actually, he didn’t mention journalists, but in the interest of accuracy, I must.

So what we have is a system that works, that enjoys public and peer support, and that has produced no evidence of corruption. Opponents seek to replace it either with an ideological system (appointment by the governor with confirmation by the Senate) or a purely political and hugely expensive one (popular election).

That’s a bad idea that just won’t die.

George Kennedy is a former managing editor at the Missourian and professor emeritus at the Missouri School of Journalism.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Jim Byrne November 5, 2009 | 3:23 p.m.

"Boy Governor"

No partisan bias here; eh George?

Did Skip remember to tell you that just 4 short years after the voters of Missouri adopted the plan, the Missouri Supreme Court changed the controlling power, by making the Missouri Bar Association (a separate entity at the time of the plan's adoption) a committee of the Missouri Supreme Court? The Court originally only had one vote out of seven; now they had four out of the seven.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock November 5, 2009 | 4:23 p.m.

Hey George would you refer to the president as a "boy?" Would you refer to any other Democrat as a "boy?" Probably not. If you want to trash Republicans at least do it with class considering you do represent MU and the Missourian.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock November 5, 2009 | 4:25 p.m.

He is a interesting article about civility.

(Report Comment)
George Kennedy November 6, 2009 | 10:23 a.m.


Thanks for reading and for reacting. I remember that article about civility, and I don't see any conflict between what I wrote then and what you read now. To call a young and baby-faced official the Boy Governor is not at all the same thing, I submit, as shouting insults at the president or making inaccurate and demeaning references to race, communism or fascism.

As to the Judicial Selection Commission, my understanding is that three members are elected by members of the Bar Association, a fourth is the president of the Bar and three are appointed by the governor. It's hard to see how that makes the commission a tool of the Supreme Court.


(Report Comment)
Jim Byrne November 8, 2009 | 8:29 p.m.

George said; "As to the Judicial Selection Commission, my understanding is that three members are elected by members of the Bar Association, a fourth is the president of the Bar and three are appointed by the governor."

I hate to break it to you George, but that IS NOT the makeup of the selection commission.

When you want to write an honest piece about judicial selection in Missouri, send me an email.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock November 8, 2009 | 9:02 p.m.

I really don't think the former governor could control how he looks any more than the president. However you can "submit" any argument (or article) you like in any way you like. I would argue that it is a bit insulting to call any person over (let say 18) a boy and I believe that a person who is supposed to represent MU journalism should write thought provoking or investigative articles and leave the petty references to bloggers and amateurs. But hey that is my two cents.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.