Missouri Plan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (April 2008)

The Missouri Plan (originally the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan), also known as the merit plan, is a method for the nonpartisan selection of judges currently used in 11 U.S. states as well as in many other countries. Many other states use a variant of it.^{[citation needed]}

The Missouri Plan is a method to combine election and appointment of judges.^{[citation needed]} Under the plan, candidates for judicial vacancies are first selected by independent commissions from all available applicants for that position.^{[citation needed]} Three (3) names are forwarded to the governor who has sixty days to select one.^{[citation needed]} If the governor does not select one of the three to fill the position within those sixty days, the committee will then make the selection.^{[citation needed]} At the general election soonest after the completion of one year service, the judge must stand in a "retention election".^{[citation needed]} If a majority vote against retention, the judge is removed from office, and the process starts anew^[1].

1 History and spread of the plan
2 Criticisms of the Missouri Plan
3 External links
4 References

[edit] History and spread of the plan

This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)

Missouri voters adopted the system by initiative petition in November 1940 after several very contentious judicial elections, which were heavily influenced by the political machine of Tom Pendergast.^{[citation needed]} Most low-level judges in Missouri are selected by other means, except in Kansas City and St. Louis, where the Missouri Plan is mandated by the state constitution for all judicial vacancies.^{[citation needed]} After Missouri adopted this method for selecting judges, several other states adopted it, either in full or in part.^{[citation needed]} The plan was put forth by a committee chaired by Jefferson National Expansion Memorial "founder" Luther Ely Smith.^[2]

The 12 states currently using the Missouri Plan are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.^{[citation needed]} Tennessee uses a modified version of the Missouri Plan called the Tennessee Plan. Florida also uses a complex, modified version of the Missouri Plan.^{[citation needed]}

The Missouri Plan is not without critics. There are several alternative ways of filling judicial posts which are used in other states. These include direct elections (either partisan or non-partisan), election by the state legislature, or appointment by the governor with advice and consent of the state senate. Missouri had previously used all of these methods before developing the Nonpartisan Court Plan in 1940.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Criticisms of the Missouri Plan

[edit] Excessive Influence of Elite Trial Attorneys

Better Courts for Missouri has argued that flaws in the current plan give elite trial lawyers too much control over judicial selection. According to the organization's executive director, "they are a small, insular group who have their interests. They have a lot to add to the process, but we don't think they should dominate the process - (and they) are in no way accountable to Missourians." ^[3]

[edit] Disenfranchisement of African Americans

This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008)

Former Missouri State legislator and lawyer, Elbert Walton, has focused on the plan's effect on African Americans. "It is unfair that lawyers elect judges . . . It disenfranchises people and it especially disenfranchises black people." ^[4] At a press conference in February, 2008, Walton accused Missouri Bar President Charlie Harris, an African-American, ^[5] of ignoring the Missouri Plan's effect on black people. Walton pointed to the fact that there had never been an African American elected to one of the Missouri Bar's three slots on the Appellate Judicial Commission, though many have been appointed judges,^{[citation needed]} and suggested that Mr. Harris "ought to be ashamed of himself" for supporting such a plan.^[6]

Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee has complained of his own state's version of the Missouri Plan for similar reasons.^[7]

[edit] Dominated by Politics

The Editors at the Wall Street Journal wrote that, "If the recent slugfests have proven anything, it's that Missouri's courts are every bit as hung up in politics as they are in other states. The difference is that in Missouri the process happens behind closed doors." ^[8]

In Tennessee, Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen made similar complaints and made comments echoing those made by Better Courts for Missouri. According to Bredesen, "I think [the nominating commissioners] have been vastly too political in their selection process. And what they are supposed to do is give you the best candidates in the ideal world." ^[9]

[edit] Judicial Oversight and Discipline is Essentially Non-Existent

In states with judicial elections, egregious judicial misconduct will reliably be brought to the voters' attention by the judge's opponents. By stark contrast, in states like Colorado, judicial discipline is dispensed by a judicial performance commission, the proceedings of which are often shrouded in strict secrecy. As former Colorado Senate Majority Leader John Andrews observes, judicial performance commissions are packed with insiders, judges are coddled by sweetheart reviews: in the past forty years, only seven out of over a thousand judges were dismissed by the voters, and only thirteen were deemed unworthy of retention by the performance commissions. Even misconduct complaints themselves are treated as state secrets: Colorado Judicial Discipline Commission executive director Rick Wehmhoefer concludes nearly all of his correspondence to complainants with, "Please be reminded that this matter is strictly confidential pursuant to Article VI, Section 23(3)(g), Colorado Constitution, and sections 24-72-401 and 402, Colorado Revised Statutes." (Example)