Testimony before Missouri Senate Committee
March 23, 2009
As I reported in an earlier post, Missouri state Senator, Jim Lembke, has introduced legislation that would make the Show Me state’s judicial selection process more open, more accountable and less influenced by legal special interests.
Earlier this month, I participated in a hearing on the legislation held by the Missouri Senate’s Committee on Governmental Accountability and Fiscal Oversight. Below is a copy of my testimony.
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE MISSOURI SENATE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Chairman Purgason, Vice Chairman Lembke, members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to participate in a critical debate that is taking place, not just in Missouri, but in states across America: How should we choose the public servants who control one-third of our state governments?
I applaud Senator Lembke for his leadership in introducing legislation that would make the high court selection process in Missouri more open, more accountable and less susceptible to influence by special interests.
In our American democracy, we start with the presumption that our rulers should be chosen by the people. The Missouri Plan has turned this presumption upside down by taking the power to select judges away from three million Missouri voters and handing it to a seven-member panel controlled by lawyers. Given such a radical departure from our basic democratic principles, it’s hardly surprising that the Missouri Plan as it stands today is broken.
Instead of reducing politics, the system is so deeply partisan that 20 of the last 21 nominees to the Supreme Court have either been Democratic contributors, supporters or members of the Missouri trial lawyers association. Instead of curtailing the power of special interests, a single interest group has been given a privileged position in determining the judicial philosophy and political bent of Missouri’s most important court. Instead of judges who are accountable to the people they serve, the Missouri Plan produces judges who are only accountable to themselves – which is the same as being accountable to no one.
I want to make it clear I am not questioning the integrity of any Missouri Supreme Court justice. The seven men and women who sit on that court take their responsibilities seriously and faithfully apply their understanding of the law to the decisions they hand down. But they too are cheated by a system that requires them to serve without the full support or confidence of the people.
Senator Lembke’s bill – SJR 9 – will go a long way toward fixing some of the most egregious shortcomings of the current Missouri Plan.
Requiring the judicial nominating commission to meet in the open, rather than in secret; reducing the influence of special interests by having a lay majority on the commission; giving the governor the opportunity to choose from a wider field of candidates; re-staggering commission appointments to make the commission more accountable: These are all valuable reforms that are worthy of your full support.
As president of the American Justice Partnership, I’ve seen many of your counterparts in state capitols around the country fight an uphill battle to make “merit” selection more open and accountable. In Tennessee, for example, both Democrat Governor Phil Bredesen and Republican Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey proposed reforms to make the commission’s work more transparent. Legal special interests pulled out all the stops to block these efforts. The political disagreements are so intense that the state legislature refused to reauthorize the nominating commission – and Tennessee will revert to democratic elections unless an agreement can be reached this summer.
I’ve also seen many states resist calls for “merit” selection – despite a PR onslaught by well-funded lobbying campaigns and powerful legal special interests. In Pennsylvania, “merit” selection supporters have spent nearly 20 years lobbying unsuccessfully to end democratic elections. The people of Wisconsin, Washington State, and Minnesota continue to jealously guard the right to vote for judges in their states.
Whatever the noble goals of its original proponents, “merit” selection has devolved into an elitist system that is undemocratic and unaccountable. Even the staunchest believers in this system – like former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor – admit that “merit” selection isn’t working in Missouri and that it needs to be overhauled.
Unlike Justice O’Connor, I’ve always been a believer in the direct, democratic election of judges, despite all the flaws that come with elections. If we trust the people of Missouri to choose the legislators who make the laws and the state executives who enforce the laws, why can’t we trust them to choose the judges who interpret the laws?
Even so, Senator Lembke’s bill is an excellent step in the right direction, and I sincerely hope Missouri takes that step.
Thank you again for inviting me to participate in this important debate. I look forward to answering your questions.
Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Judicial Elections, Missouri
One Response to “Testimony before Missouri Senate Committee”
[...] A Wall Street Journal editorial picks up on the news that legislation to make Missouri’s judicial selection process more transparent and less influenced by special interest groups passed the state House last week. For more info on reform efforts in Missouri, read my previous posts here and here. [...]