Litigation

Missouri Merit Selection is Debated

By Peter Hardin

Defenders and critics of Missouri’s nationally recognized merit selection system for judges square off in a point-counterpoint published by the St. Louis Beacon. Critics want to replace Missouri’s plan  (for more background, see these earlier Gavel Grab posts).

James Harris, executive director of ShowMe Better Courts, lays out in his commentary a concern that the current system for choosing state Supreme Court judges “is broken and failing to meet the needs of everyone but a group of elite special interests and greedy trial lawyers.” He advocates voter election of all judges in the state.

Under the current system, a nominating commission submits a slate of three candidates to the governor, who chooses from that list. The system is used for selecting appellate court judges and trial court judges in urban counties. The judges may be retained or removed by voters later.

Chad Flanders and Matt Hall, defenders of the merit selection system, are professors at Saint Louis University. They offer this response to critics who contend the process is controlled by trial lawyers:

“Even if there is a seed of truth to this, we shouldn’t adopt a cure that is worse than the disease. Saying that trial lawyers rig the nominating process is an allegation that the process is too political. Surely the solution is not to make judicial selection wholly a matter of political campaigns, money and party bosses!

“Interpreting our laws can be controversial, and there is good reason to question many decisions made in our courts. But we will not enhance the basic fairness and integrity of those institutions by creating a system that makes judging a matter of electoral politics. Instead, we should strive to give judges a place in our system that, at its best, transcends politics by preserving judicial independence.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 17, 2010 (boomark / email).