'Missouri Plan' for Judicial Selection Encourages Economic Growth More Than Alternatives, Finds New Show-Me Institute Study May 21, 2008
A new policy study from the Show-Me Institute examines the varying systems of judicial selection found throughout the United States. Asking the question, “Is the ‘Missouri Plan’ Good for Missouri?” the study considers the state’s method of merit-based selection for Supreme Court judges in comparison both to the similar systems and alternate selection methods used elsewhere.
Authors Joshua Hall, an assistant professor of economics at Wisconsin’s Beloit College, and Russell Sobel, professor of economics at West Virginia University, use an economic framework to find which systems of judicial selection tend to correlate with economic growth, noting that judicial selection methods have historically been altered in response to perceptions about which systems might function better, rather than after consideration of empirical data. Because impartial, knowledgeable judges are crucial to balancing government power, in turn they are crucial to maintaining liberties. Bad court systems impede growth by creating uncertainty, and driving up the cost of doing business via legal liability.
Missouri was the first state to adopt a merit-based selection of judges, in 1940. Currently, 26 states use some version of the Missouri Plan as an alternative to popular elections. Recently, some have questioned the efficacy of the Missouri Plan, suggesting alterations to the existing system, or even a return to elections. Hall and Sobel suggest that it is “imperative that policymakers and voters have accurate evidence about the relationship between different mechanisms of judicial selection and the quality of a state’s legal system,” and have accordingly developed a framework to compare varying types of judicial selection. The authors measure “judicial quality” in terms of how well each selection system tends to promote economic growth.
The authors use data collected from the Institute for Legal Reform’s State Liability Systems Ranking Study, which provides a measure of “how reasonable, fair and balanced” the judiciary in each state is perceived to be by American business. While this type of survey data is an imperfect measure of economic growth, it is also “the only empirically based index that exists across states and through time,” and previous research has demonstrated a significant correlation between the Ranking Study data and hard measures of economic growth, like poverty and unemployment rates.
Hall and Sobel find that states using the Missouri Plan, or one of its variations, have legal climates with better, statistically significant, rankings than states using partisan elections, non-partisan elections, and gubernatorial appointment with confirmation.
The authors conclude that Missouri could see a decrease in judicial quality if the current selection plan were replaced by elections. They suggest that Missouri could experiment with variations or tweaks to the current selection process by adding some form of legislative oversight or confirmation, but there is no statistical indication that such changes would result in higher or lower judicial quality. They point out, however, that small reforms may be useful — such as those “that simply change the structure, rules, terms, or selection methods of the current nominating commission.”
The authors are available for interview or comment. Also available to discuss the issues raised by this study is David Stokes, a policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute. Those seeking additional information, or who would like to schedule interviews, should contact Stokes at david.stokes@showmeinstitute.org or (314) 726-5655.
