New editions of the State Legislative Tracker and The Policy Tracker available now!

Missouri Judicial Selection Amendment (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 10:28, 3 May 2010 by Pthrower (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Missouri Constitution
Flag of Missouri.png
The Missouri Judicial Selection Initiative is a ballot measure that may appear on either the August 3, 2010 primary election ballot or the November 2, 2010 general election ballot in the state of Missouri as an initiated constitutional amendment. A petition drive began on July 13, 2009 in order to send the measure to the ballot.[1]

Better Courts for Missouri, a 501 c4 organization, is backing a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the governor to select his or her own judge to rule on the Missouri Supreme Court. The state senate would then confirm the appointment of the judge, similar to the federal courts process. The group began the petition drive in order to eliminate the current system that, they said, is prone to being influenced by special interest groups, according to the organization.[2][3]

Ballot summary

See also: Text of Missouri Judicial Selection Amendment (2010)

Version 2

The official ballot title of Version 2 is (certified September 4, 2009):[4]

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to repeal the current nonpartisan court plan for the selection of judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Courts in St. Louis City and Jackson, Platte, Clay, St. Louis, and Greene Counties and to create a new method of selecting such judges through appointment by the Governor with advice and consent of the Missouri Senate?[5]

Version 3

The official ballot title of Version 3 is (certified November 12, 2009):[6]

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
  • repeal the current nonpartisan court plan used to select judges and the current prohibition on judges participating in political campaigns;
  • select all judges through partisan elections; and
  • reduce the terms for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges from 12 to 8 years?

Fiscal impact

According to the secretary of state's office, "Most local election authorities estimate no costs or savings, however, some local election authorities may incur estimated costs of $25,000 to $184,536 for each general election if the proposal results in the need for additional ballot pages. The proposal may result in an estimated savings of $7,741 to state governmental entities."

Second initiative petition

Judicial Selection Missouri Ballot Initiative, 5/2/10

Better Courts for Missouri on October 9, 2009 filed a second initiative petition with the Missouri Secretary of State's Office. This time, it's a petition that would replace the Missouri Plan for selecting appellate judges with direct elections. If approved by the voters in November of 2010, Missouri would have direct elections for the Missouri Supreme Court and the Missouri Court of Appeals like its neighbors in Illinois[7].

An initiative filed earlier in the year by Better Courts for Missouri is in litigation as a result of a lawsuit filed by groups who prefer to continue the practice in Missouri of having a small commission pick the state's high court judges.[7]

In a statement in regards to direct elections, James M. N. Harris, the director of Better Courts for Missouri said:

“Direct elections are the primary method of appointing judges in many other states, as well as at the local level in a majority of counties in Missouri. It’s not like this is a new, untested idea. While the group of ambulance chasers that dominates the current process will no doubt voice concern and try to obstruct this attempt to give the people a voice, their concern is based upon the realization that they will no longer be able to use the secrecy and lack of accountability under the current system to bend the court to their will. All along, our goals have been very simple: increasing transparency, increasing citizen control, and reducing the influence of the trial bar.” [7]


On September 15, 2009 two lawsuits were filed in the Cole County Circuit Court against the proposed amendment.[8]

  • One lawsuit, filed by Jefferson City attorney Alex Bartlett, argued that the petition for the proposed constitutional amendment did not follow the laws governing the initiative process and should be thrown out.[9] Secretary of State Robin Carnahan approved the petitions for circulation on September 8.[10]
  • The second lawsuit, filed by Jefferson City lawyer Heidi Doerhoff Vollet on behalf of former state Sen. Harold Caskey, argues that State Auditor Susan Montee did not offer an accurate fiscal note. The lawsuit would require for Montee to issue a new fiscal note and thus block circulation of the petitions until the legal battles are settled.[9]
    • Ballot measure supporters said December 31, 2009 that they are seeking to intervene in the lawsuit in order to help move it forward.[11]
  • On February 26, 2010 Cole County Circuit Court Judge Patricia Joyce ruled that the challenge was invalid.[12] Judge Joyce said the summary that would appear on petitions is fair and sufficient.[13]

Ethics complaint against Missouri Bar

On March 12, 2010 ShowMe Better Courts filed an ethics complaint against the Missouri Bar, a state-created association for state lawyers. The complaint alleges that the state Bar been using funds in the campaign against the proposed measure. According to the complaint, the Bar is a creation of the Missouri Supreme Court as as such, is only allowed to use funds to educate others about the court. James Harris of ShowMe Better Courts said,"No group is above the law and the law is clear that organizations or individuals who engage in political activity to influence the electorate have disclosure and reporting requirements associated with that activity." However, Missouri Bar president Skip Walther said that the association has not spent any money against the proposed measure and the appeal is "replete with inaccuracies."[14][15]

Path to the ballot

See also: Missouri signature requirements

To qualify for the ballot, each initiative requires signatures from registered voters equal to 8% of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts. Petition signatures are due by May 2, 2010.


See also


External links

Additional reading


  1. 2010 Missouri Election Calendar, 2010
  2. Columbia Daily Tribune, "Drive targets judge selection", July 13, 2009
  3., "Better Courts for Missouri", 2009
  4. Missouri Secretary of State,"Constitutional Amendment to Article V, Relating to Repealing the Nonpartisan Court Plan, version 2 2010-061," retrieved November 23, 2009
  5. St. Louis Post-Dispatch,"Ballot title approved for Missouri court plan repeal," September 8, 2009
  6. Missouri Secretary of State,"Constitutional Amendment to Article V, Relating to Repealing the Nonpartisan Court Plan, version 3 2010-071," retrieved November 23, 2009
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 "St. Louis Post Dispatch" UPDATE: Anti-Missouri Plan group now seeks direct election of judges, October 7, 2009
  8. Associated Press,"2 lawsuits challenge proposed Mo. ballot measure on judicial selection," September 15, 2009
  9. 9.0 9.1 News Tribune,"2 lawsuits seek to block court-changing petitions," September 15, 2009
  10. St. Louis Post-Dispatch,"Ballot title approved for Missouri court plan repeal," September 8, 2009
  11. Associated Press,"Missouri backers of court changes seek to join lawsuit," December 31, 2009
  12. St. Louis Post-Dispatch,"Ballot initiative to require direct election of judges gets court OK," February 26, 2010
  13. Associated Press,"Mo. judge rejects suit over court ballot measure," February 26, 2010
  14. St. Louis Post-Dispatch,"Missouri Bar hit with ethics complaint over alleged campaign violations," March 12, 2010
  15. Associated Press,"Mo. lawyers' group accused of violating ethics," March 13, 2010