Missouri Plan

From Judgepedia

The Missouri Plan (originally the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan), also known as the merit plan, is a method for the selection of state-level judges that is currently used in 11 U.S. states.

The Missouri Plan combines appointment and election of judges. Under the plan, when there is a judicial vacancy, a list of candidates to fill the vacancy is selected by a commission; in Missouri, the commission is the Missouri Appellate Judicial Commission. Three (3) names are forwarded to the governor who has sixty days to select one. If the governor does not select one of the three to fill the position within those sixty days, the committee will then make the selection. At the general election soonest after the completion of one year service, the judge must stand in a retention election. If a majority vote against retention, the judge is removed from office, and the process starts anew ^[1].

History and spread of the plan

Missouri voters adopted the system by initiative petition in November 1940 after several contentious judicial elections, which were heavily influenced by the political machine of Tom Pendergast. Most low-level judges in Missouri are selected by other means, except in Kansas City and St. Louis, where the Missouri Plan is mandated by the state constitution for all judicial vacancies. After Missouri adopted this method for selecting judges, several other states adopted it, either in full or in part.

The 12 states currently using the Missouri Plan are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. Tennessee uses a modified version of the Missouri Plan called the Tennessee Plan. Florida also uses a complex, modified version of the Missouri Plan.

Criticism of the Missouri Plan

The Missouri Plan is not without critics. The primary criticism is that insider interests can and do gain control of the process, so the judges that are selected are chosen not for their merit, but because their judicial philosophy aligns with that of the members of the selection commission. Since the members of the Commission are chosen or appointed through a political process themselves, politics easily enters into the process.

There are several alternative ways of filling judicial posts which are used in other states. These include direct elections (either partisan or non-partisan), election by the state legislature, or appointment by the governor with advice and consent of the state senate. Missouri had previously used all of these methods before developing the Nonpartisan Court Plan in 1940.

When it was initiated in 1940, the "Missouri Plan" was seen as a way of keeping politics and special interests out of the judicial selection process. Unfortunately, the Plan’s promise has not been fulfilled. Over the years, the Commission’s secretive selection process has become increasingly controlled by the Missouri Bar Association, an organization with close ties to liberal special interest groups.

For Missouri residents, the Plan changed significantly in 1976 when, without voter intervention, the Missouri Supreme Court created Rule 12.21. This rule mandated that all complaints filed against judges are to be hidden from the public unless their Commission for Retirement Removal and Discipline of Judges (C.R.R.D.) initiated a formal investigation.

C.R.R.D. is made up of two judges, two attorneys, and two gubernatorial appointees. At least four members must agree to initiate a formal investigation. This Commission, fondly known as CRUD, is seen more as a clearing house for judicial complaints than as a competent means of restraining a corrupt judiciary.

2008 Gubernatorial Candidate Suggests Plan Not Working

Congressman Kenny Hulshof, Missouri's 2008 Republican candidate for Governor, criticized the Plan saying it had outlived its purpose, proposing changes to the way Missouri's appellate judges are chosen. His plan would give the governor "greater leeway in making appointments," according to an Associated Press article that quotes Hulshof as saying, "The nonpartisan plan has become partisan."^[2] Hulshof said the Missouri Plan favors trial and injury lawyers, long recognized as the liberal wing of law, who have enjoyed too much influence on how judges are picked. His Democratic challenger, Attorney General Jay Nixon, said Hulshof's plan, which would require a constitutional amendment to go before voters, would actually increase the amount of politics in court selection process.

According to the paper:

[Hulshof] wants to replace the three attorney members of the commission with two randomly selected appeals court judges and one randomly selected trial judge. He also proposed replacing the chief justice with a randomly selected retired Supreme Court judge.

For Hulshof's full plan see here.

Ballot Measure

A ballot measure entitled Missouri Nonpartisan Selection of Judges (2008) was in circulation in Missouri to remove the nominating commission from the process of selecting judges and invest such power with the Governor, subject to Senate confirmation. The petition failed to gain enough signatures to make the ballot.

External links

• Bar Association pans Hulshof proposal to change judicial selection process

Explanations of the Missouri Plan

• Info from the Missouri Judiciary
• Voting for Missouri's Judges - From Missouri Bar Association

Pro-Missouri Plan links

• Let the People Judge the Judges: Reforming Virginia's Judicial Selection Process
• Judges and elections are not always a good mix
• Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts

Anti-Missouri Plan links

• Minnesota Judicial Elections: Better Than the "Missouri Plan"

References

Portions of this article have been taken from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Copyright Notice can be found here.