Missouri Plan

Last updated

The Missouri Plan (originally the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, also known as the merit plan, or some variation) is a method for the selection of judges. It originated in Missouri in 1940 and has been adopted by many states of the United States. Similar methods are used in some other countries.

Contents

Under the Plan, a non-partisan commission reviews candidates for a judicial vacancy. The commission then sends to the governor a list of candidates considered best qualified. The governor then has sixty days to select a candidate from the list. If the governor does not make a selection within sixty days, the commission makes the selection.

At the next general election after the completion of one year's service, the judge must stand in a retention election. If a majority votes against retention, the judge is removed from office, and the process starts anew. [1] Otherwise, the judge serves out a full term.

As of 2016, 38 states have a form of merit-based selection and retention method for some or all judges. [2] Twenty-five states have a nominating commission to screen all candidates of the state courts of last resort. [2] Eight states have commissions which fill interim vacancies on the highest courts. [2] Twenty states utilize retention elections for judges who wish to serve on highest state courts beyond their initial term. [2]

Nonpartisan judicial commissions under the Plan

Under the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, a nonpartisan judicial commission reviews applications, interviews candidates and selects a judicial panel. For the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, the Appellate Judicial Commission makes the selection. It is composed of three lawyers elected by members of the Missouri Bar (the organization of all lawyers licensed in this state), three citizens selected by the governor, and the chief justice, who serves as chair. Each of the three geographic districts of the Court of Appeals must be represented by one lawyer and one citizen member on the Appellate Judicial Commission.

Each of the circuit courts in Clay, Greene, Jackson, Platte, and St. Louis Counties, and the city of St. Louis has its own circuit judicial commission. These commissions are composed of the chief judge of the court of appeals district in which the circuit is located, plus two lawyers elected by the bar and two citizens selected by the governor. All of the lawyers and citizens must live within the circuit for which they serve the judicial commission.

History and spread of the plan

In line with other reforms urged during the Progressive Era, legal scholars put forth ideas in the first decades of the 1900s to reduce or remove the role of politics in the selection of judges, particularly circuit judges with responsibilities over the day-to-day work of the courts. An example of this advocacy is the merit selection program urged by Albert M. Kales in his work Unpopular Government in the United States (1914). [3]

Support for merit selection increased due to the perceived corruption of urban political bosses. 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. [1] Most associate and circuit judges are elected. However, the state constitution requires such judges in Jackson County (Kansas City) and the city of St. Louis to be selected under the nonpartisan system. [4] Similarly, the voters in Clay and Platte counties (parts of Kansas City), St. Louis county, and Greene County (Springfield) have elected to appoint such judges under the nonpartisan system. [5] After Missouri adopted this method for selecting judges, several other states adopted it, either in full or in part. [1] The plan was put forth by a committee chaired by Luther Ely Smith, "founder" of the Gateway Arch National Park. [6]

The Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan has served as a model for thirty-four other states that use merit selection to fill some or all judicial vacancies. [7] 23 states use the method or a variant for the state supreme court. [8]

California uses a heavily modified version in which the Governor can theoretically nominate any California attorney who has practiced for ten years. But then the nominee must undergo an evaluation by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) of the State Bar of California, which then forwards a nonbinding evaluation to the Governor. For superior court positions, the Governor can make an appointment after receiving a report from JNE. For appellate court positions, the Governor submits the nomination to the Commission on Judicial Appointments, consisting of the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, and the presiding justice of the affected Court of Appeal district (or the most senior presiding justice for Supreme Court nominations). The CJA holds a public meeting, and receives the report from the JNE Commission, then decides whether to confirm the nominee. Once confirmed, the judge can take office but then must go through retention elections (at different intervals for each level of the judiciary).

Criticism

The Missouri Plan is not without critics. There are several alternative ways of filling judicial posts that 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 adopting the Nonpartisan Court Plan in 1940.[ citation needed ]

Excessive influence of 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." [9]

Professor Stephen Ware of the University of Kansas wrote about the Missouri Plan, "As the bar is an elite segment of society, states that give lawyers more power than their fellow citizens are rightly described as elitist." [10] Ware continued:

...even commission systems have democratic legitimacy insofar as members of the nominating commission are appointed by popularly elected officials. Democratic principles are violated, however, when members of the commission are selected by 'a minority of the persons, i.e. lawyers in their area'. This, of course, is the core of the Missouri Plan – allowing the bar to select some of the commission and then declining to offset that bar power with confirmation by the senate or other popularly elected body. And it is this core that deprives the Missouri Plan of democratic legitimacy. [10]

Low diversity of the Commission

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." [11] At a press conference in February, 2008, Walton accused Missouri Bar President Charlie Harris, an African-American, [12] of ignoring the Missouri Plan's effect on black people. Walton noted that no African American had ever been elected to one of the Missouri Bar's three slots on the Appellate Judicial Commission, though many have been appointed judges, and suggested that Mr. Harris "ought to be ashamed of himself" for supporting such a plan. [13]

Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee has criticized that state's version of the Missouri Plan for similar reasons. [14]

Political interference

The Wall Street Journal wrote "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." [15]

Similarly, Professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt University has argued that politics are undoubtedly a part of judicial selection in Missouri Plan states, writing, "In short, I am skeptical that merit selection removes politics from judicial selection. Rather, merit selection may simply move the politics of judicial selection into closer alignment with the ideological preferences of the bar." [16] Fitzpatrick notes that "…if we are willing to accept the notions that lawyers care about the outcomes of judicial decisions and that these outcomes are correlated with judges' ideological preferences, then we might expect merit commissions to select judges who share the ideological preferences of the bar rather than those of the public." [16]

Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen has made similar complaints. He remarked, "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." [17]

Related Research Articles

In the United States, a state supreme court is the highest court in the state judiciary of a U.S. state. On matters of state law, the judgment of a state supreme court is considered final and binding in both state and federal courts.

The government of the U.S. state of Missouri is organized into the state government and local government, including county government, and city and municipal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tennessee Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Tennessee

The Tennessee Supreme Court is the highest court in the state of Tennessee. The Supreme Court's three buildings are seated in Nashville, Knoxville, and Jackson, Tennessee. The Court is composed of five members: a chief justice, and four justices. As of September 1, 2023, the chief justice is Holly M. Kirby.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Maryland</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Maryland

The Supreme Court of Maryland is the highest court of the U.S. state of Maryland. The court, which is composed of one chief justice and six associate justices, meets in the Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building in the state capital, Annapolis. The term of the Court begins the second Monday of September. The Court is unique among American courts in that the justices wear red robes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Florida</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Florida

The Alaska Supreme Court is the state supreme court for the U.S. state of Alaska. Its decisions are binding on all other Alaska state courts, and the only court its decisions may be appealed to is the Supreme Court of the United States. The Alaska Supreme Court hears appeals from lower state courts and also administers the state's judicial system.

The Alaska Court System is the unified, centrally administered, and totally state-funded judicial system for the state of Alaska. The Alaska District Courts are the primary misdemeanor trial courts, the Alaska Superior Courts are the primary felony trial courts, and the Alaska Supreme Court and the Alaska Court of Appeals are the primary appellate courts. The chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court is the administrative head of the Alaska Court System.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Missouri</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Missouri

The Supreme Court of Missouri is the highest court in the state of Missouri. It was established in 1820 and is located at 207 West High Street in Jefferson City, Missouri. Missouri voters have approved changes in the state's constitution to give the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction – the sole legal power to hear – over five types of cases on appeal. Pursuant to Article V, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, these cases involve:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oklahoma Supreme Court</span> One of the two highest judicial bodies in the U.S. state of Oklahoma

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma is a court of appeal for non-criminal cases, one of the two highest judicial bodies in the U.S. state of Oklahoma, and leads the judiciary of Oklahoma, the judicial branch of the government of Oklahoma.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. state)</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Georgia

The Supreme Court of Georgia is the highest judicial authority of the U.S. state of Georgia. The court was established in 1845 as a three-member panel. Since 1896, the justices have been elected by the people of the state. The justices are currently elected in statewide non-partisan elections for six-year terms, with any vacancies filled through an appointment by the Governor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nebraska Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the State of Nebraska

The Nebraska Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of Nebraska. The court consists of a chief justice and six associate justices. Each justice is initially appointed by the governor of Nebraska; using the Missouri Plan, each justice is then subject to a retention vote for additional six-year terms. The six associate justices each represent a Supreme Court district; the chief justice is appointed at-large.

The Tennessee Plan is a system used to appoint and elect appellate court judges in Tennessee. It is largely patterned after the Missouri Plan, and an earlier version in Tennessee was called the Modified Missouri Plan. At the end of every judge's eight-year term following a judicial appointment to the highest courts, retention elections are held, which have the option of whether each judge shall be retained through a yes-no option. This system applies to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate Court of Maryland</span> Marylands intermediate appellate court

The Appellate Court of Maryland is the intermediate appellate court for the U.S. state of Maryland. The Appellate Court of Maryland was created in 1966 in response to the rapidly growing caseload in the Supreme Court of Maryland. Like the state's highest court, the tribunal meets in the Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building in the state capital, Annapolis.

E. Riley Anderson was an American attorney, politician, and jurist who served as Chief Justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court from 1990 to 2006.

A judicial retention election is a periodic process in some jurisdictions whereby a judge is subject to a referendum held at the same time as a general election. The judge is removed from office if a majority of votes are cast against retention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Mexico Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of New Mexico

The New Mexico Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of New Mexico. It is established and its powers defined by Article VI of the New Mexico Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court which reviews civil and criminal decisions of New Mexico's trial courts of general jurisdiction and certain specialized legislative courts, only having original jurisdiction in a limited number of actions. It currently resides in the New Mexico Supreme Court Building in Santa Fe.

The Judiciary of Colorado is established and authorized by Article VI of the Colorado Constitution as well as the law of Colorado. The various courts include the Colorado Supreme Court, Colorado Court of Appeals, Colorado district courts, Colorado county courts, Colorado water courts, and municipal courts. The administration of the state judicial system is the responsibility of the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court as its executive head and is assisted by several other commissions. In Denver, the county and municipal courts are integrated and administratively separate from the state court system.

The Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission was established in 1958 when Kansas voters approved an amendment to the state's constitution. The commission is tasked with presenting the governor with a slate of three qualified candidates whenever a vacancy occurs on the Kansas Supreme Court. The governor interviews the candidates and makes the appointment. This process, known as merit selection, is used by Kansas and 21 other states, along with the District of Columbia, for selecting all members of their highest court.

The Judiciary of California or the Judicial Branch of California is defined under the California Constitution as holding the judicial power of the state of California which is vested in the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts. The judiciary has a hierarchical structure with the California Supreme Court at the top, California Courts of Appeal as the primary appellate courts, and the California Superior Courts as the primary trial courts.

In Pennsylvania, the judiciary is chosen through partisan elections. Partisan elections involve judges political party to be listed on the ballot. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not always elected judges through this process.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Nonpartisan Court Plan". Missouri Judicial Web site. June 28, 2007. Archived from the original on July 9, 2007.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Gleason, James A. "State judicial selection methods as public policy: The Missouri plan." (2016).
  3. ↑ Kales, Albert M. (1914). Unpopular Government in the United States. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. pp.  225–51.
  4. ↑ Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 25(a)
  5. ↑ Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 25(b)
  6. ↑ http://www.nps.gov/jeff/historyculture/upload/luther_ely_smith.pdf Luther Ely Smith: Founder of a Memorial - nps.gov - Retrieved January 12, 2008
  7. ↑ "History of the Non-Partisan Court Plan". www.mobar.org. Archived from the original on September 30, 2006. Retrieved January 13, 2022.
  8. ↑ "State Courts Guide". www.statecourtsguide.com.
  9. ↑ Bob Watson, "Opponents of judicial selection process form new group" [ permanent dead link ] Jefferson City News Tribune. Accessed March 14, 2008.
  10. 1 2 The Missouri Plan in National Perspective, Missouri Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 3
  11. ↑ Jason Noble, "Another amendment, another hearing, more of the same debate on the judicial selection process Kansas City Star February 26, 2008. Accessed March 14, 2008.
  12. ↑ Missouri Bar News Release, September 28, 2007,[ permanent dead link ]News Release
  13. ↑ Scott Lauck, St. Louis attorney says blacks left out of judicial selection Daily Record
  14. ↑ "Justice at Stake, Bredesen complains about Missouri Plan". Archived from the original on October 20, 2007.
  15. ↑ Wall Street Journal Missouri Compromised December 22, 2007. Accessed March 14, 2008
  16. 1 2 The Politics of Merit Selection, Missouri Law Review, Vol. 74, Issue 3
  17. ↑ Andy Sher. Chattanooga Times Free Press "Bredesen Wants Nominating Commission to Operate in Open January 14, 2008 Archived February 29, 2008, at the Wayback Machine .
Explanations of the Missouri Plan
Pro-Missouri Plan links
Anti-Missouri Plan links

See also

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.