judgesonmerit.org

“Vote Yes for Question 1,” a coalition of reform-minded Missourians who want to improve how Greene County selects its judges, has gathered far more than the 12,000 signatures required to put their initiative on the ballot. If voters vote yes for Question 1 this November, Greene County will adopt the Merit Selection system known as the Missouri Plan. Judge John Holstein, former chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, endorses the Missouri Plan and explains why it is important to avoid conflicts of interest in the courtroom:

“[D]o you know how much money your opposing counsel or the opposing party donated to that judge in the last election?” he asked. “In the partisan system, that’s all permissible and I tell you it’s a gnawing feeling in the gut of both the judge and the attorneys.”

By eliminating expensive election campaigns, the Missouri Plan makes sure that the court is accessible to potential judges who are qualified to serve, but may not have the deep pockets to support such a campaign.

Also eliminated by the Missouri Plan is the possibility that candidates will be able to buy their way to the bench by launching flashy and expensive election campaigns, supporters say.  “If we don’t want a system where the wealthy, or those who have access to the wealthy, are able to become judges, I think the preferable system is the nonpartisan selection system,” Holstein said.

We’re glad folks in Greene County get to decide how they want to select their judges, and we hope Pennsylvanians will soon get a chance to decide whether to implement a Merit Selection system for the appellate courts.

In a weekend commentary in the St. Louis Dispatch, Missouri Bar President Charlie J. Harris praises the judicial selection system used in Missouri, the model for many other Merit Selection plans and proposals:

No million-dollar campaigns, no vicious attack ads. . . . The beauty of the plan is that judicial candidates don’t have to curry the favor of either political party or prowl about for campaign contributions. What judicial candidates do need are impeccable credentials, a strong understanding of the law and the standing within the legal profession and their community to gain the trust and respect of others.

Harris contrasted the situation in Missouri with the ugly judicial elections in many states, such as Pennsylvania, noting: “In those states, voters are barraged by demeaning political attack ads, designed to destroy the opposing candidate’s credibility. The content of those ads encourages the public to think poorly of the candidate, and the money behind the ads raises serious concerns.”

The proposal to bring Merit Selection to Pennsylvania includes a framework based on the Missouri Plan, modified to reflect the unique cultural and political history of Pennsylvania. We hope Pennsylvania will soon join states like Missouri that choose their appellate court judges through Merit Selection.

With a vacancy on Missouri’s Supreme Court, there is renewed criticism of the Missouri Plan, and talk in some circles about trying to get rid of the Plan and institute judicial elections. Check out Blue Girl’s post on Show Me Progress, which defends Missouri’s Merit Selection system.

Highlighting the benefits of the state’s model Merit Selection system, Blue Girl explains; “One of the most elegant features of the plan is the way it defangs the money monster. Success in partisan elections depends on money, on the financial contributors of donors (a very specious proposition when we are talking about the very concept of Justice)…” Implementing Merit Selection for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts would “defang the growing money monster” here as well.

Using common sense and frank talk, Blue Girl also attacks a frequently heard criticism of Merit Selection:

Detractors say that the process is too reliant on the input of lawyers, but that argument doesn’t get off the starting blocks with me. Who better to make judgments about legal professionals than other legal professionals? [W]hat a nightmare [it] would be if judges owed political favors to certain segments of the electorate, and naturally had a political bias against others. How could you call that justice?

Thanks, Blue Girl for some excellent insights on Merit Selection. We’ll keep our readers posted on the fight to preserve the Missouri Plan.

  As a scandal unfolds in the West Virginia Supreme Court, an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor looks to Missouri as a model for freeing state judiciaries from the influence of big campaign donations. You can read the entire editorial here.