One of these reforms is a subject of contention right now in St. Louis. In the 1940s, the office of the City of St. Louis Personnel Director, in charge of hiring most city employees, was made almost entirely independent of elected officials. That was understandable at the time, as that was a period of significant political corruption in American cities.

Over time, though, a wise move to limit corruption has petrified—as so often happens in bureaucracies—into a position designed to protect the status quo. Between 1942 and 2021, only four people held the job. Yes, they may have been very good at it. But it was inevitable that they became protectors of the system and of the other people within the system, particularly other city employees who live in the same social and cultural circles. If they weren’t there to protect the status quo, why else would a retired personnel director be taking advantage of intricate knowledge of city charter rules to prevent the current mayor from getting her person into the position now?

Former Personnel Director Rick Frank, who held the job for 17 years before retiring in 2021, has reapplied for his old position. And the current director, Sonya Jenkins-Gray, on Nov. 15 granted his request to be placed on an eligible reemployment list, according to Frank and a copy of the letter he shared with the Post-Dispatch.

That, Frank said, means the mayor would have to at least interview him should the personnel director position open up. And she wouldn’t be able to pick an interim for the job while that list exists.

“If her intent were to put a provisional appointment in there, there’s a problem per the charter and the rules,” he said.

Remember that a major city employee union sued to prevent Mayor Jones from being able to select her chosen person for the position during a prior vacancy.

H.L. Mencken said that “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” When people vote for change, the newly elected officials deserve the chance to institute that change, within reason. That includes putting the people they want into important positions. The voters can then judge those elected officials later at the ballot box.

Civil service rules preventing mass firings after every election are good, in that democracy functions better with such rules than without them. Rules that give local government personnel directors some independence from politics in hiring are also good.

However, when these rules ossify into a system where a former city employee applies for a job in a move that looks as if he is simply trying to obstruct the hiring decisions of the mayor, I’d say the rules have gone too far and need to be changed.

The post Civil Service Reforms Can Go Too Far appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a letter to the editor of the Sedalia Democrat, John S. Johnston, president of the Missouri Bar, offers voters a tool to make an informed decision regarding the selection and retention of nonpartisan judges. The Missouri Bar website features a section called “Judging the Judges,” which presents the findings of Judicial Performance Evaluation Committees — nonpartisan committees made up of both lawyers and non-lawyers. According to Johnston:

The committees have a completely non-partisan agenda: to provide voters with the unbiased information they need to cast an informed ballot.

The committees have published their evaluations along with surveys of lawyers’ ratings, jurors’ ratings and samples of appellate judge’s written opinions.

You can investigate your local judges by checking out “Judging the Judges” and clicking on the area where you live.

In addition to selecting specific judges, citizens also have the power to vote to retain or kick out judges after they have served for one year, thanks to the Missouri Plan, adopted in 1940. The Springfield News-Leader also explains how, since 2008, residents of Greene County try to keep politics out of judicial processes, by voting each term whether to retain or get rid of each judge, based on a system of merits.

Online tools like “Judging the Judges” are great, because they educate voters about judicial candidates, and also because they present new ways for the populace to become involved in the process, helping put power back into the hands of the voters.

The post Judge Not, Lest Ye … Oh, Just Go Ahead appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Show-Me Institute scholars have written about this topic before, discussing benefits of the Missouri Plan as measured by a few particular metrics.

Findings from the Show-Me Institute’s 2008 study of judicial selection have been misinterpreted by proponents of the Missouri Plan who have drawn broad conclusions about its positive effects on the economy based on the study’s relatively narrow, caveated data set. The authors of the study, economists Joshua Hall and Russell Sobel, stipulated that the criteria they used to determine the effects of judicial selection mechanisms on economic growth amounted to a limited methodology. They concluded that although it appeared variants of the Missouri Plan tended to correlate with better economic growth than states using partisan or nonpartisan elections, it might be possible to make minor improvements to the process, such as adding legislative oversight. Although Hall and Sobel’s data provided a useful glimpse at the effects of the Missouri Plan from one particular angle, other future studies analysing different sets of source material might arrive at somewhat different conclusions.

Hopefully, Better Courts for Missouri will take as many of these factors into account as possible as they work toward a solution that brings increased transparency to judicial selection in Missouri.

The post The Missouri Plan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I support the Missouri Plan, but many of the changes to the plan debated by the editorial board are very close to what I called for in a commentary piece I wrote almost two years ago. Altering the terms of the commission members, reducing (but by no means eliminating) the influence of attorneys, and adding legislative confirmation of commissioners to the selection process would all be well within the framework that Hall and Sobel examined in their Show-Me Institute study. They were careful to note at the end of their study that they did not consider smaller reforms that would simply change the structure of the commission, though they warned that going too far in such changes would negate the point of the commission. States that use the Missouri Plan but add legislative confirmation to the process score just as well in the rankings Hall and Sobel considered as our current system does.

Our editor, Eric Dixon, wrote a useful piece about ways to interpret Hall and Sobel’s study. We appreciate the Post‘s editorial board using our work, but the study that the Show-Me Institute released does not suggest that all of the recent suggestions for altering the Missouri Plan are poor policy.

The post Post-Dispatch Editorial About Judges Needs a Tweak appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The study, “Is the Missouri Plan Good for Missouri? The Economics of Judicial Selection,” by economics professors Joshua Hall and Russell Sobel, compares seven different types of judicial selection systems found within the United States, four of them variants of the Missouri Plan. Hall and Sobel gauge the effectiveness, or “quality” of each of these systems by ranking how well they promote economic growth, according to the impressions gauged by an annual survey of attorneys. They conclude, after analyzing this information, that implementations of the Missouri Plan produce far better growth outcomes than do partisan or nonpartisan elections.

The study certainly provides useful data for understanding the relationship between judicial selection methods and the degree of respect held for a state’s judiciary. As the authors pointed out, they based their research on “the only empirically based index that exists across states and through time.” The study also cites previous research that shows a correlation between high scores on the index and a state’s economic growth. But, as the authors explained, the index may have a built-in bias that readers should consider, because of its reliance on the opinions of attorneys for large public corporations. It is possible that those responding to the survey are more likely to favor judicial systems in which members of the legal community have significant control over the appointment of judges.

The ways in which government institutions are structured have a tremendous effect on society at large. The mechanisms of the public sphere set benchmarks that radiate outward, influencing how people live, work, trade, and resolve their differences. For those of us who favor limited government and free markets, strong economic growth is one desirable side effect of public policy, but it’s not the only way to measure policy success — other metrics could tip the balance when choosing between proposals that each have evident value.

Supplementary studies might consider the extent to which a particular selection process promotes variables such as strong property rights, sensible limits on tort damages, or simple judicial accountability. People seriously considering the question of which judicial selection system would work best might place any number of factors higher than economic growth. Choosing outcome priorities for an entire legal system is an area in which people of good will can differ.

Determining the ideal structure for government institutions isn’t as simple as reading, say, the Declaration of Independence and extrapolating the principles of liberty it contains. No particular framework is implied by standard natural rights theories. If we want government to have a limited purview over the lives of the citizenry, we need to ensure that we have a robust system of checks and balances — but the exact ways in which we separate the powers of government can’t be derived from general principles. It takes hard work, observation, dialogue, and persuasion over time, and any one step in that process is not likely to provide a definitive answer.

It’s important to carefully consider the role that we want the government to perform in society, and at times review whether a change in the way public institutions operate will bring us closer to the type of government we seek. In the case of judicial selection, while the Show-Me Institute study by Hall and Sobel provides valuable data from one particular perspective, it is not a comprehensive, all-encompassing treatment of the issue — and the study itself never claimed as much.

The Show-Me Institute remains committed to examining public policy from a variety of angles, building over time a body of work that might provide a more comprehensive glimpse of Missouri government than any single study can provide. As voters consider changes to their judicial selection system in the coming election, they should keep in mind that advocates on either side of the issue have a range of motives for their positions, and taking their arguments into account is a more complex process than they might be led to believe.

Eric D. Dixon is the editor for the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

The post Economic Growth Only One Factor in Choosing Judicial Selection System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The last major ballot issue about which we have something to say is the question of whether to adopt the Missouri Plan for judicial selection in Greene County. We released a major study about the statewide impact of such plans earlier this year. It concluded that states using judicial selection panels, in one form or another, rather than elections, have a high correlation with good overall environments for business. Yours truly framed that argument in relation to Greene County (that’s the Springfield area, in case you didn’t know) in an article where I argue that the Missouri Plan could benefit the area’s residents.

So, voters both statewide and in our big cities, please review our work before you go into the ballot box to make your own well-researched decisions. Especially because an informed vote has absolutely no marginal utility whatsoever over an uninformed vote — which is depressing, but I’ll leave that particular issue to our editor. …

The post Two More November Ballot Issues appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

You may have heard there will be an election this November. Alongside trivial votes, such as who to choose for president, residents of Greene County will decide whether to adopt Missouri’s non-partisan court plan for their jurisdiction. Under the proposed change, Greene County judges would be selected by Missouri’s governor from a panel of three chosen by a judicial commission, rather than by popular election. The new commission would consist of the county’s chief judge, two citizens selected by the governor, and two lawyers elected by the county bar association.

This method of judicial selection is used for all of the state’s Supreme Court and appellate judges, as well as the judges for five circuits serving large cities and counties in Missouri. A recent study by the Show-Me Institute shows that adoption of this type of non-partisan court plan provides a better environment for economic performance and growth.

The “Missouri Plan,” as the system is known — because Missouri was the first state to adopt such a format — has been subsequently adopted, in various forms, by 25 other states. However, the plan has recently been the subject of much controversy here at home. In particular, some critics have accused the appellate commission — which selects the panels for openings to the state’s highest courts — of gaming the selection process by providing a panel consisting of one person that the commission supports and two others that they know would be unacceptable to the governor. There is much truth in these accusations, but the overall history of the plan, as well as its current operations in the local circuits, has been far less controversial. The Missouri Plan has served our state well by reducing the level of partisan politics in judicial selections.

In May, the Show-Me Institute released a study, “Is the ‘Missouri Plan’ Good for Missouri? The Economics of Judicial Selection,” by professors Joshua Hall and Russell Sobel. The study compared the various methods of judicial selection used in each state to that state’s legal quality ranking, as measured by the Institute for Legal Reform. The ILR ranks all 50 states every year according to results from a survey of attorneys representing large corporations. While the rankings are admittedly biased toward the interests of big business, this also serves as a formidable counterweight to the oft-heard charges that the Missouri Plan unfairly benefits trial lawyers.

The results of Hall’s and Sobel’s study are unambiguous: States that use some variant of the Missouri Plan’s merit-based system of judicial selection rank higher in terms of overall legal quality, according to the ILR survey, than states that elect their judges in either partisan or non-partisan races. Partisan elections, like those in Greene County, rank the lowest, by a significant margin.

The implications for Greene County are clear. The Hall and Sobel study presented economic findings that a legal system’s quality matters for economic growth, and although the paper focuses on statewide judicial selection plans, the hallmarks of a good statewide environment for business also apply at the county level. Respect for property rights, reliable enforcement of contracts, market-friendly laws, and fair juries are the foundations of a healthy business environment at any level of government. Positive efforts and statewide reforms, such as tort reform, can only go so far if the rulings of local elected judges are subject to electoral pressures.

The proposed judicial selection changes for Greene County should not be interpreted as an attack on the county’s current elected judges. In fact, eliminating the factor of partisan elections will relieve those judges of external pressures. If the non-partisan selection system is implemented, sitting judges will be maintained in office, subject to the people’s future retention votes.

The study by Hall and Sobel shows that selection systems with appointed judges correlates with generally improved environments for business and economic growth. In the long run, this change will benefit the people of Greene County by helping to ensure that the county remains a healthy environment for the free market to flourish.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Greene County Could Benefit From Non-Partisan Judicial Selection appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My first response is that I think many of the proposals are worthy of serious consideration. They do not scrap the Missouri Plan and return to the use of elections for these positions, nor do they give too much power to any one entity. But more to come on this topic next week.

The post The Missouri Plan, for Your Consideration appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I am not actually positive that the Manhattan Institutue is in Manhattan, but let’s assume it is. Anyway, its legal scholar, Walter Olson (from the famous overlawyered.com), has a great essay about the strange desire of business groups to favor elections for judges. He includes commentary about the Show-Me Institute study of the Missouri Plan, written by Hall and Sobel this past spring, and links to it. Please check out his commentary and our study. The only small addition I would make to his point is to add Southern Illinois as an example of a state in which elected judges and huge tort verdicts coincide.

The post They Are Talking About Us in Manhattan! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recent judicial appointments in Missouri have intensified calls for reform of Missouri’s judicial selection process. While these debates can seem like mere partisan bickering, judicial independence is critical to a well-functioning legal system, which is an important factor in economic growth. Research has found that judicial independence and legal system quality matter for economic growth, and that the outcomes of a state’s legal system depend in part on how its judges are selected. Although the General Assembly decided not to pursue legislation that might alter the “Missouri Plan” during this past legislative session, the quality of the state’s legal system and its potential effect on economic growth is an issue worthy of ongoing attention.

Policymakers need evidence about the relationship between judicial selection and legal system quality. Our recent Show-Me Institute study analyzed how judicial selection methods affect the quality of state legal systems. We looked at seven general methods used across states: (1) nonpartisan elections; (2) partisan elections; (3) legislative elections; (4) gubernatorial appointment with a nominating commission; (5) gubernatorial appointment with a nominating commission and legislative confirmation; (6) gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation only; (7) gubernatorial appointment with approval by an executive council.

To measure legal system quality, we used a study of state legal systems by the Institute for Legal Reform. Based on a survey of corporate lawyers, this study admittedly has a bias in that it attempts to gauge how the state legal systems are viewed by large public corporations. But this bias is also one of its advantages. Most legal reforms are enacted to promote economic growth and development, and it is precisely the perception of the state’s legal climate toward business that is being measured by this index. The study scores each state on a scale from zero to 100, with higher scores representing higher levels of legal quality. For each of the seven methods of judicial selection we calculated the average index score of each group from 2002–07.

We find that two methods of judicial selection tied for the highest average index scores during this period: gubernatorial appointment from a nominating commission both with and without legislative confirmation (both averaged a score of 65.3). Gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation came in third (65.0), followed by election by legislature (63.8), nonpartisan elections (61.2), and gubernatorial appointment with council approval (60.7). States using partisan elections handily received the worst average index score for judicial system quality during the period (53.4).

Based on conventional techniques for measuring statistical significance, we find that Missouri’s current method of judicial selection is statistically superior to judicial elections (either partisan or nonpartisan) and also to gubernatorial appointment with council approval alone. Based on our analysis, we conclude that Missouri could well err by moving to one of these three other methods.

We find that no other method of judicial selection results in average scores or rankings that are statistically better than Missouri’s current system. Thus, we cannot say that a switch to another type of system would result in an improved legal system. Election by legislature, gubernatorial appointment from a nominating commission with legislative confirmation, and gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation alone produce, on average, legal scores and rankings statistically equal to Missouri’s current system.

Thus, our findings suggest that Missouri would at least be no worse off if it wanted to experiment with selecting judges by either: (a) election by the legislature; (b) adding legislative confirmation to the existing appointment process; or, (c) gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation, but without a nominating commission. We note, however, that for all three of these alternative methods, there are states using them that both score both better and worse than Missouri. Based on our analysis, Missouri’s current system appears to be far superior in promoting economic growth than some of the alternatives — most notably judicial elections.

Joshua Hall is an assistant professor of economics at Beloit College, and Russell Sobel is professor of economics and James Clark Coffman Distinguished Chair at West Virginia University. Read their full study of judicial selection systems.

The post Is the ‘Missouri Plan’ Good for Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Show-Me Institute study of judicial selection is topical in Springfield for several reasons.  First — and this is really more of a statewide issue — there is another vacancy on the Missouri Supreme Court, so our system shall again be put into action and to the test. Also, some community leaders in Springfield are beginning a process to consider whether Greene County should join the five other local circuits in the state that use the non-partisan court plan at the local level. While the study itself focused on the Supreme Court, I believe its findings — that our current system of judicial selection is good for our economy — apply just as well to the local courts. And, clearly, from what television tells me, the legal community in Springfield could use some improvement. 

The post Springfield and the Courts, a Love Story appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First of all, Missourinet has an audio story about our recently released study of judicial selection (link via Mr. Combest). Check it out if you can. Next, the Washington Examiner has an article about tort reform success across America that mentions Missouri as an example. According to the article:

Since the reforms became law, the number of medical insurance companies in Texas increased from four to more than 30. Malpractice insurance premiums fell by as much as 31 percent.

This dovetails nicely with last month’s Missouri articles discussing insurance premium reductions for doctors, which we blogged about here at SMI.

I think the facts are pretty clear. Our judicial selection system is a good one for our state, although I believe small improvements can still be made to it (our study focused on the big picture and admitted minor changes could be either helpful or harmful). Even more importantly, the tort system had gotten out of whack before the "Missouri Plan" — particularly the venue laws — and changes needed to be made. Those changes have benefited our economy and our health care system. Now, unless some Law & Order twist happens in the next few seconds (like St. Luke’s Hospital announcing they are moving to St. Clair County, Ill.), I declare this post closed.

The post Court Reporting appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In short, it finds that Missouri’s current method of selecting Supreme Court justices (and appellate judges, and some lower court judges) is the most favorable system for the state’s economic growth, as measured by the ILR rankings. (To be clear, it’s actually tied with the closely related system of gubernatorial appointment from nominating commission with legislative approval; Missouri does not have this last part.)

Now, how does this fit into the ongoing debate about reforming our system? It is very important to note that this study looks at the big picture, not the small parts. It places the 50 states into seven different categories based on their methods of judicial selection. However, the authors readily admit that there are minor differences between individual processes within each of those seven methods. The study concludes that the Missouri Plan is good for our state and for economic growth. It does not say that minor improvements or changes to the Plan are automatically bad things, although it does warn against going too far with minor changes. To that end, I think the study fits well with the Missouri Plan op-ed I wrote last year. (I should probably rephrase this, as the small op-ed fits with the major study — not the other way around.)

Nevertheless, I think this study provides an excellent framework for looking at this issue, and clearly warns against making significant changes to our plan. However, defenders of the current system (of which I am one) would be incorrect if they were to suggest that the study defends the current system exactly as it is.

The post Show-Me Institute Releases Judicial Selection Study appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The “Missouri Plan” amended the state Constitution such that judicial nominations are selected — at least in part — through an independent nominating counsel (generally comprising state American Bar Association-appointed lawyers) instead of by popular election. Today, 26 states have adopted some form of the “Missouri Plan” for their judicial appointments.

The legal benefits of the “Missouri Plan” are debatable. Many studies have examined the impact of such plans on business-friendly legislation (the argument being that judicial nominations appointed by ABA members will be less friendly to issues that might limit the market for lawyers). In fact, in an upcoming policy report, the Show-Me Institute will examine the Missouri Plan in detail. (Stay tuned for the excitement!)

The Federalist Society’s research highlights at least one negative aspect, however. To date, 45 states have addressed education adequacy litigation. According to data gathered by Columbia University, about two-thirds of adequacy decisions in Missouri Plan states strike down the legislatures’ funding statutes. This means that courts have effectively commandeered the power of the purse — something clearly within the proper domain of the legislatures.

In addition, in a joint study by the Institute for Justice and the American Legislative Exchange Council, analysts found that school voucher systems are constitutional in 77 percent of states with popularly elected judiciaries, versus 50 percent in Missouri Plan states.

So I guess this was a long way of me saying that there is evidence that courts are friendlier to the school choice movement in states where judges are elected by the people themselves.

The post The Missouri Plan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The other article is from the Washington Post on judicial elections. While changes may indeed be necessary for our own Missouri Plan, this article clearly shows the problems that come from large-scale judicial elections. I hope we make needed improvements to our judicial selection system, but I in no way want to move toward the elections we see over in Illinois that are described in this article.

The post Judicial Elections and Parkland Sales appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Keeping judicial selection democratically accountable is the best insurance for choosing the best judges, and ensuring that they are serving the interests of the citizens.

I can’t tell whether that is calling for all judges to be elected, or just for increased transparency and more involvement by elected officials in the selection process. My guess is that they are calling for all judges to be elected, which would be an absolutely terrible idea statewide and in larger counties. If they are merely calling for more openness and input from elected officials, I agree with that, to a large extent.  As a reminder, my own op-ed on this issue is here. There are many good parts of the editorial, too, especially the none-too-kind comments on the current Supreme Court panel Governor Blunt gets to pick from.

The ending of the Wall Street Journal editorial isn’t its only weakness, though. It quotes a poll, as if that is some sort of evidence for anything:

In a Federalist Society poll done in March, 87% of state residents were unaware even of the make-up of the nominating commission.

An any point in time, about 30 percent of Americans can’t name the vice president. Should we get rid of that office? Any idea how many people can, right now, name their state representative? I am guessing 20 percent at most. Should we get rid of them? (Don’t answer that.)  I am actually surprised 13 percent of Missourians could correctly list the commission’s make-up. Just because people watch "Entertainment Tonight" instead of reading The Economist does not mean the Missouri Plan is flawed.

I was going to post today on additional feedback my op-ed has received, but the Journal seemed more topical. I’ll do that tomorrow. Can’t you just feel the excitement? 

P.S. — You wanted more Spike Lee references, you got ’em!

The post Wall Street Journal and Mo’ Better Judges appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

He pointed out that the most clearly political selections come after one party has had a stronghold on the commission selection for a long period of time. He then suggested that the best way to go would be for the commission to have no political appointments, since that inevitably leads to politics being injected into judgeships. I don’t think he intends for every member of the judicial commissions to be elected lawyers or automatic judges, but rather that citizen members should be chosen by some other method. Since, in his opinion, that last option is unlikely, he believes keeping six-year staggered terms is the best way to have more consistent, less volatile, and less political judicial selections.

In short, my opinion is that if the use of six-year, staggered terms for appointees was intended to keep politics out of the appointments and increase independence, then that is one part of the Missouri Plan that failed. Too often, the appointees of ex-governors — particularly in the current Appellate Court panel — are more loyal to their party than to the idea of a fair panel. So it would be better, to my mind, to eliminate the idea that appointed spots aren’t political, and instead just admit the obvious and have appointees serve their terms concurrent with the governor. There would still be checks and balances on appointees through elected lawyers and the automatically placed judge on each committee. This is what I mean by respecting the will of the voters.

But David made a number of good points, and I greatly appreciate his time and thoughts.

I also received a call today, with some similar commets and critiques, from a judge I won’t name (even though it would not be a big deal if I did). I appreciate the judge’s feedback, as well. I wish to emphasize again that I support the Missouri Plan and think it would be an enormous mistake to get rid of it. If my op-ed can play a small role in sparking discussions about ways to improve the plan, while keeping it primarily intact, then I will be very pleased.

The post Feedback on Missouri Plan Op-Ed appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Anybody paying attention to Missouri news recently will know about the recent controversy over judicial selection, with each side claiming that the other wants the process politicized in its favor. Some have called the legitimacy of the Missouri Plan into question, but David thinks the system has a great deal of value that a few important tweaks would enhance:

Missourians amended our state constitution in 1940 to change the ways judges were selected for the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the circuit courts of Jackson County and Saint Louis City. This was done in response to public concerns about the power of political machines in electing judges under the previous system. Dubbed “The Missouri Plan,” it has been expanded to include circuit judges in Saint Louis, Clay, and Platte Counties. The amendment’s provisions replaced elections with a judicial commission, which reviews applicants for open positions and narrows the list down to three choices. The governor then selects a new judge from that panel. The system has worked very well for Missourians, taking some of the politics out of judgeships and efficiently filling vacancies. However, a few important changes could make the plan work even better.

Read more about David’s proposed changes on the Show-Me Institute website.

The post Tweaking the Judicial Selection Process appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missourians amended our state constitution in 1940 to change the ways judges were selected for the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the circuit courts of Jackson County and Saint Louis City. This was done in response to public concerns about the power of political machines in electing judges under the previous system. Dubbed “The Missouri Plan,” it has been expanded to include circuit judges in Saint Louis, Clay, and Platte Counties. The amendment’s provisions replaced elections with a judicial commission, which reviews applicants for open positions and narrows the list down to three choices. The governor then selects a new judge from that panel. The system has worked very well for Missourians, taking some of the politics out of judgeships and efficiently filling vacancies. However, a few important changes could make the plan work even better.

The recent Supreme Court opening has raised to new prominence the simmering dispute over the true non-partisanship of the Missouri Plan. Allies of Governor Matt Blunt feel that the current appellate judicial commission has not fairly recognized the fact that he, not the commission, is the elected leader of Missouri. The current make-up of both the commission and its recently selected panel, which many conservatives feel is tilted toward the left, seem to substantiate this charge. This has led to calls from some legislators to do away with the Missouri Plan. While changes need to be made, doing away with the plan entirely would be going too far.

The most important change for the Missouri Plan is the elimination of six-year, staggered terms for governor-appointed positions. In theory, staggered terms might allow for more independence and less partisanship, but in reality they have served to allow outgoing governors to load up commissions with their supporters beyond their terms in office. For example, former governor Bob Holden made six appointments to various judicial commissions during the time between when Governor Blunt was elected and took office two months later. Stacking the deck with supporters of your own party is, I am confident to say, not what the framers of the Missouri Plan had in mind. Making the appointed positions’ term coincide with the governor’s own term would serve to respect the wishes of voters and whatever candidate they choose to elect.

The second change I recommend is to add one appointed position to each commission, making the number of appointments equal to the number of judges and attorneys on the commission. Currently, the appellate commission is made up of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, three lawyers elected by the bar association, and three gubernatorial appointments. Each of the county commissions is made up of that circuit’s chief judge, two elected lawyers, and two gubernatorial appointments. Adding an additional appointment to each commission would make the landscape for selection more balanced. Let us not delude ourselves about the goals of the lawyers who run for judicial commissions via bar association elections. They, particularly the activists within the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, are not always looking for the most qualified people to elevate to judgeships. Many of them are looking to support candidates who agree with their legal opinions.

Supporters of the Missouri Plan can point out that the retention votes appointed judges will face in the future act as a check and balance for the system. The retention vote is a good practice, but electoral history has shown it is almost impossible to get enough people to focus on the issue. Last year in Saint Louis County, a judge was handily retained by voters when an overwhelming number of lawyers, in a bar association survey, had advised against retaining her — a recommendation echoed by area newspapers. Perhaps we could improve the retention vote system by taking a page from Illinois and mandating a 60-percent vote in favor of retention in order for a judge to remain in office. I believe that is an idea worth debating.

Finally, the Legislature should take steps to make it clear to all that the various judicial commissions’ actions are covered by the state’s sunshine law. It astounds me that an appointed commission thinks it does not have to comply with Missouri citizens’ basic right to know what their government officials are doing. With these changes, I believe we can reach a fair compromise and retain the best parts of the Missouri Plan for judicial selections, without returning to the electoral problems that led us to create the plan in the first place.

David Stokes is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute.

The post The Missouri Plan, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Lawyers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.