“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.”
The Battle Continues In Missouri
May 13, 2009
Better Courts for Missouri has launched an ad campaign calling for the legislature to pass HJR 10 – a measure designed to make the judicial selection process in Missouri more transparent, more accountable and less subject to special interest pressure. You can watch the ad here.
Elitist legal groups are pulling out all the stops to block HJR 10 and keep Missouri citizens in the dark about how their judges are picked and preserve what they’ve come to consider their divine right to decide who rules in our courtrooms. Whether they succeed or not, legal elites are clearly on the defensive. HJR 10 has put a permanent crack in the foundation of “merit” selection by exposing the absurdly anti-democratic nature of this system. Here’s a quick scorecard of the two sides in this debate:
- Proponents of HJR 10 want to apply Missouri’s Sunshine Law to the state’s judicial selection commission. Opponents believe the commission should continue meeting in secret.
- Proponents of HJR 10 want ordinary citizens to have a more prominent say in deciding who will control one-third of their state government. Opponents believe a single special interest group (lawyers) should keep picking judges.
- Proponents of HJR 10 want to increase accountability for judicial selection by requiring prospective judges to be confirmed by the Senate and allowing the Governor to pick from any of the qualified candidates, not just from the hand-picked list put together by lawyers. Opponents believe the judicial selection commission should be accountable to no one.
Even a die-hard Missouri Plan supporter like former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has endorsed a key provision of HJR 10, telling a group of Missouri law students back in March “you can’t have secret proceedings.” Apparently even this mild concession to transparency is too much for judicial selection star chambers to bear. I guess they figure if ordinary citizens see how lawyers are gaming the system to pick judges of their choosing, they might actually demand the restoration of their right to vote for judges in democratic elections. The horror!
Reform Efforts Gather Momentum In Missouri
April 20, 2009
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.
As the Journal correctly points out, letting a committee dominated by trial lawyers meet behind closed doors to decide who controls the courts has failed to take politics out of judicial selection in Missouri – unless you think handing control over to one political party is the essence of nonpartisanship.
The failure of “merit” selection – a system where an elite star chamber of lawyers gathers in secret to anoint judges – has also led Tennessee to look for ways to make judicial selection more democratic (that’s with a small “d”). Political leaders are beginning to recognize that shifting the power to select judges from voters to trial lawyers—who only want to pad their wallets—isn’t a great economic strategy:
“The continued reign of a judiciary chosen by trial lawyers and Democratic partisans is showing signs that its time has passed. For states looking to save their economies from tort-lawyer pillage, reducing the power of lawyers to dictate judicial selection would be a start.”
Making Headway In Missouri
April 10, 2009
An update on an issue we’ve been tracking for the last few weeks: the Associated Press reported earlier this week that the Missouri House of Representatives has approved legislation that would overhaul Missouri’s so-called “merit selection” plan.
In a press release issued by Better Courts for Missouri, House Majority Leader Steve Tilley is quoted as saying, “Allowing voters to decide if they want more accountability and openness in how our judges are selected is one of the more important items that the Missouri Legislature can pass this legislative session.”
Amen to that.
The House vote was bipartisan and the issue now moves on to the Senate. According to Better Courts for MO, pending Senate approval the issue will go before the voters for their approval in an upcoming election.
The Politics Of “Non-Political” Judicial Selection In Missouri
April 2, 2009
Proponents of “merit” selection have always held up Missouri’s Supreme Court as the ne plus ultra of non-partisan judiciaries. While justices in some other states must sully themselves by actually interacting with the people they serve (otherwise known as campaigning), Missouri’s high court judges stand serene and aloof, above the political fray and accountable to … well, to no one actually. So much for that fantasy.
Yesterday, Better Courts for Missouri filed a Sunshine Law request after learning that sitting court members are “actively lobbying members of the Missouri General Assembly” to defeat reform legislation that would make state courts more open and accountable. The group supports legislation currently being debated in the Missouri legislature that would require Missouri’s judicial selection commission to come out from behind closed doors; reduce the influence of legal special interests on the panel; and make the court more accountable to the people.
“Our efforts to add transparency to the Missouri Plan should be debated by our legislators and by the people of Missouri,” said Executive Director of Better Courts for Missouri James Harris, quoted in a press release. “These modest changes to the Missouri Plan should not be actively opposed or supported by the judiciary using state monies.”
Neutral observers have long argued that the Missouri Plan is broken. While “merit” selection was supposed to end politics in judicial selection, 20 of the last 21 nominees to the state’s Supreme Courts have been Democrats and many have been members of the Missouri trial lawyers association. Now we have sitting court members actively lobbying political leaders to defeat a modest reform bill to make their selection more transparent. Isn’t it time for “merit” selection proponents to drop the pretense that this system removes “politics” from the judiciary?
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. Read more
Justice O’Connor Comes Out Against Secret Selection of Judges
March 2, 2009
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told a group of Missouri law students that the state’s judicial nominating commission should no longer be allowed to meet in secret – endorsing a key provision of legislation moving through the Missouri Legislature that would reform the state’s “merit” selection system:
“You can’t have secret proceedings.”
Justice O’Connor admitted, however, that even though her home state of Arizona has open judicial selection meetings, interest in the judicial selection process seems confined to the legal community. Perhaps allowing voters to press their noses against the glass window while a group of lawyers decides who will control one-third of a state’s government just isn’t enough. That’s why the Missouri reform legislation goes further by diluting the influence of special legal interest groups in the judicial selection process and making the process more accountable. No word in the media reports on whether Justice O’Connor supports these steps as well.
Of course, the real answer to making judicial selection more open and accountable is to give the power to choose judges back to the people, through democratic elections. Justice O’Connor opposes judicial elections because fundraising in these races has risen to what she calls “obscene” levels. But this is a criticism that can be applied to all campaigns – including the Obama campaign, which spent an astounding $750 million-plus to win the White House. If campaign cash is poisoning judicial selection, should U.S. Senators who accept money from Trial Lawyers, Inc. be prohibited from voting on nominees to the federal bench?