Missouri Plan

The editorial board Post-Dispatch doesn't include many fans of the ballot initiative campaign from the "Better Courts for Missouri" organization, which would replace the state's widely praised nonpartisan judicial selection plan with a more partisan arrangement that would be controlled by the governor and state senators.

[T]he greatest single political threat to justice in Missouri lies with a harshly ideological and well-financed few who are doing all within their power to politicize how judges are selected in the state.

They have plotted — and continue to plot — to cut ordinary citizens and respected lawyers out of the judicial selection process and put partisans and power brokers in charge. Their current strategy is being advanced by a shadow group fronted by James Harris, a former political operative to former Gov. Matt Blunt. [...]

Barb Shelly of The Star has a good response to today's announcement that conservative activists will be trying to gut the state's widely-praised judicial selection plan with a ballot initiative.

Conservatives, who claim the current system is liberal-leaning and favors trial lawyers, have been trying to change it for years. But they never seem to be able to cite even one decision by a statewide court which reflects a "liberal bias" or preference for the trial attorneys.

In fact, the one ruling opponents have named to argue for a change in Missouri was a school finance edict -- by the state Supreme Court in Kansas.

Read More »

Share

• Tweet Widget
• Google Plus One
• Facebook Like

GOP Speaker Pro Tem Bryan Pratt believes that the outrageous politicking we've been experiencing in the Sonia Sotomayor nomination process has really inspired Missourians to add unrestrained partisanship into our own judicial selection process. Pratt spoke on a panel yesterday at the Conservative Heartland Leadership Conference with State Sen. Jim Lembke and others about their legislative and ballot-initiative strategies for undermining Missouri's widely-praised process. On the panel, Pratt said the right-wing hysteria about Sotomayor has prompted "a greater grassroots movement'' to push for "dramatic changes" to the Missouri Plan.

And why wouldn't we want the same sort of junk here in Missouri?  I mean, who wouldn't love informed and well-reasoned questions about the influence of menstruation on judges' decisions, shameless hypocrisy from partisans on manufactured issues, or weeks of hand-wringing about how sorry politicians are for making outrageous claims about nominees.  Why wouldn't we want more of that? It sounds absolutely fabulous!

To right-wing ideologues, maybe.

In this morning's Star:

This year’s scheme for altering the way judges are selected is among the worst yet. It sets the stage for prolonged political feuding and threatens to weaken the independence and quality of Missouri’s bench...

The House has proposed a constitutional amendment that would give politicians too much say over how judges are nominated. The commission makeup would be changed so the governor could appoint more members than the lawyers’ bar would elect. Currently, the number is equal.

The Missouri Senate would have to confirm commission members — raising the prospect of prolonged and unnecessary partisan squabbles...

Missouri House members clearly are willing to compromise the quality of the state’s judiciary to score points with groups that want judges to heed their special interests. That’s a distressing realization.

The Senate must stop this bungled attempt to alter judicial selection. If it doesn’t, the state’s voters will form the final defense against a bad idea.

For more on the subject, check out Jason Rosenbaum's coverage (with video!) of GOP efforts to push through the hyperpartisan plan here.