Will Missouri’s Secretary of State Side With the People or With the Lawyers?
June 2, 2010
The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today on the drive in Missouri to restore democratic judicial elections and scrap the state’s “merit” selection system. As the Journal correctly notes, far from being nonpartisan, “merit” selection has:
“handed disproportionate influence over the judiciary to lawyers and bar associations….Judicial elections carry the risk of partisan excess, but at least they hold judges accountable and don’t allow a small legal clique to nominate its friends and ideological allies.”
Election supporters have gathered enough signatures – over 200,000 – to put the question on the November ballot, but Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan must certify the signatures. Carnahan is running for Senate and has received over $500,000 from lawyers, who desperately want to preserve their privileged position when it comes to picking judges. So will she bow to her financiers or put the measure on the ballot?
More Trouble for “Merit” Selection in Missouri
May 12, 2010
The recognition that “merit” selection is fatally flawed in its birthplace of Missouri appears to be growing.
Professor Chad Flanders of St. Louis University School of Law and law student Grant Gaumer have a piece in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch outlining a proposal to dump “merit” selection in favor of the federal model for picking judges. As Flanders and Gaumer point out:
“ … the [federal] method of selection is open and transparent and connected to the Governor and legislators, all accountable to the people.”
Accountability is crucial because, according to Flanders and Gaumer, “there is a decided lack of transparency” in the “merit” selection system which allows “political bias [to] creep in.”
Creep in? In Missouri, political bias is the driving force behind most judicial nominations – a phenomenon seen under both Democrat and Republican governors. The Flanders/Gaumer proposal is also helpful because it highlights the distinctions between the federal system and “merit” selection, which “merit” proponents, including Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, often try to blur.
The Ugly Tactics of “Merit” Selection Goon Squads
April 26, 2010
Missouri’s “merit” selection system is always promoted as a nonpartisan way to ensure judges remain independent and impartial. But if anyone doubts that raw politics rather than good government lies at the heart of the Missouri Plan, just take a look at the tactics of the goon squads hired by a lawyer-funded group fighting against a ballot initiative that would take the power to pick judges away from lawyers and return it to the citizens. Read more
The Return of the Goon Squads in Missouri
April 20, 2010
Last week I posted on the temporary restraining order issued by a Missouri court. The TRO was against a lawyer-funded group that has hired goon squads to harass and intimidate Missouri voters signing petitions aimed at restoring their right to vote for Supreme Court justices. In a farcical about face, the judge dissolved the order within about 24 hours. Read more
Legal Elites Try to Bully People of Missouri
April 16, 2010
Recently in Missouri we’ve seen the disturbing lengths to which powerful lawyers’ groups will go to preserve “merit” selection and maintain their chokehold on judicial appointments. A group called ShowMe Better Courts has launched a petition drive to restore the right of Missourians to select their judges in democratic elections. In response, a lawyer-funded group – run by former Missouri Supreme Court justice Chip Robertson – hired a goon squad to harass and intimidate citizens interested in signing the petition and getting the measure on the ballot. Read more
The People v. The Elites in Missouri
March 26, 2010
James Harris of ShowMe Better Courts has a great piece in the Missouri Record that lifts the rock on the supposedly non-partisan Missouri Plan for picking judges. According to Harris:
“Wealth and well-connected lawyers, particularly those who are members of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, are allowed carte-blanche access to the selection process while ordinary citizens are shut out by a commission that meets behind closed doors.”
Rather than picking judges according to “merit” – as supporters of the Missouri Plan assure us – the commission chooses nominees “based on political friendships as well as ideological and financial considerations.” Harris pulls the curtain on the selection process for the last two Supreme Court nominees, where well-qualified legal scholars and law professors were bypassed for commission cronies.
Like all other states with “merit” selection systems, the question boils down to who should have the power to choose our public servants on the bench – the people or legal elites? Harris comes down firmly on the side of the people.
“Our courts are here to serve the people, not just well-connected attorneys. A system of direct involvement and democratic legitimacy will give us an impartial judiciary. The current system is marked by corruption and voter apathy.”
“Another Step Forward” in Missouri
March 2, 2010
Better Courts for Missouri scored a victory last week when a state court invalidated a challenge to their proposed ballot initiative. The initiative would change the way the state chooses most of its judges - currently via “merit” selection (aka the “Missouri Plan”) - in favor of direct elections. Better Courts for Missouri will now begin collecting signatures in hopes of qualifying for the November 2010 ballot.
MO Supreme Court Adopts New Judicial Selection Rule
December 17, 2009
For years opponents of open, democratic, judicial elections, have pointed to the state of Missouri and the so-called “Missouri Plan” as the shining example of the proper way to select judges: behind closed doors, without any involvement of the grubby masses, and with no sunlight shining on the cloaked machinations that lead to judicial appointments.
This week, the Missouri State Supreme voted to crack open the door on this secretive process.
The Associated Press reports that the state Supreme Court has adopted a new rule that will force state judicial nominating panels to make public all the names of the people that are interviewed for judicial openings.
Hardly a show stopper…but a move toward transparency.
To review, in Missouri, openings for the state Supreme Court are filled by the merit selection process: a judicial nominating panel interviews applicants, forwards three candidates to the governor, the governor chooses one. This process also applies to appellate courts and to trial courts in a handful of Missouri counties (Greene, Jackson, Clay, Platt and St. Louis). Other Missouri counties rely upon open, democratic judicial elections.
American Courthouse readers are by now familiar with the drill: the Missouri panel is comprised of seven members and is dominated by trial lawyers, legal elites and other and legal special interests. In fact, according to Better Courts for Missouri, ”all of the lawyer members under the ‘non-partisan’ judicial selection system are or were on the Board of Governors of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys.” They meet behind closed doors and their interviews, deliberations and discussions are kept secret. Only when the star chamber has made its fincal decision are the nominees’ names made available to the public.
So secretive is the process that even stalwart merit selection proponent Sandra Day O’Connor told a Missouri legal audience earlier this year that the system wasn’t working:
You can’t have secret proceedings.
More reform is needed - and change may be coming. Better Courts for Missouri is pushing ballot initiatives for the 2010 election that would overhaul the entire system by ending secret selection - a process that is as unaccountable as it is undemocratic.
Missouri trusts the people to choose legislators who make the laws and state executives who enforce them. It’s time to let voters choose the Missouri judges who interpret the laws.
Missouri considers banned deceptive ads
August 25, 2009
Earlier this month, I applauded a federal judge’s ruling to uphold Louisiana’s rules prohibiting deceptive lawyer ads. Similar rules are under consideration in Missouri according to Travis Akin of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch in an op-ed published earlier this week.
He writes:
The Board of Governors of the Missouri Bar will soon be considering new rules to tighten up regulations on personal injury lawyer advertising, a move many law firms are fighting.
The rules include bolstering the visibility of a required disclaimer and banning the use of celebrities in lawyer ads.
Akin laments Illinois’s unwillingness to take similar action:
While the Show Me State is actively refining its rules, Illinois has done very little to regulate personal injury lawyer advertising.
Illinois television viewers are treated to a barrage of ads that go far beyond informing people of their rights. Many of these ads almost dare viewers to file a lawsuit even if they have not been injured.
I stand with Akin in hoping that Illinois can follow in Missouri and Louisiana’s footsteps in curbing deceptive advertising.
The Battle Continues In Missouri
July 14, 2009
Better Courts for Missouri has launched a petition drive aimed to putting an initiative on the ballot to make the state’s judicial selection process more open and more accountable to the people.
As it stands today, Missouri judges are chosen behind closed doors by a committee dominated by trial lawyers. In fact, according to Better Courts for Missouri, “all of the lawyer members under the ‘non-partisan’ judicial selection system are or were on the Board of Governors of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys (MATA).”
Legislation to require the judicial nominating commission to come out from behind closed doors passed the House last April. However, the Senate adjourned without taking action following a furious lobbying campaign to kill the bill by legal special interests and, astonishingly enough, sitting judges themselves.
Passing any constitutional amendment is an uphill battle, but Better Courts for Missouri has pledged to continue the fight on behalf of Missouri citizens. Said member Larry Russell:
“Missourians should have a say in who sits on their high courts, not just elite trial attorneys. The initiative petition is an important right for Missourians.”