Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Patricia S. Joyce

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Local Politics Image.jpg

Ballotpedia provides comprehensive election coverage of the 100 largest cities in America by population as well as mayoral, city council, and district attorney election coverage in state capitals outside of the 100 largest cities. This judge is outside of that coverage scope and does not receive scheduled updates.


BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Ballotpedia does not currently cover this office or maintain this page. Please contact us with any updates.
Patricia S. Joyce

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Do you have a photo that could go here? Click here to submit it for this profile!


Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court Division 4
Tenure
Present officeholder

Education

Bachelor's

Southeast Missouri State University, 1976

Law

St. Louis University School of Law, 1979


Pat Joyce is the presiding circuit court judge for Division 4 of the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in Missouri. Joyce was first elected as circuit judge in 2006.[1][2]

She was re-elected to the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in 2014 for a term that expires on December 31, 2020.[3]

Elections

2014

See also: Missouri judicial elections, 2014
Joyce ran for re-election to the 19th Judicial Circuit Court.
Primary: She ran unopposed in the Democratic primary on August 5, 2014.
General: She faced Brian Stumpe in the general election on November 4, 2014. [3][4] 

Spending

By mid-October, a Missouri political action committee (PAC) backed by the Republican State Leadership Committee had funneled $200,000 into the campaign of Republican candidate Brian Stumpe. Approximately $78,000 of those funds were used for a media buy featuring TV ads that promoted Stumpe and criticized the incumbent, Judge Patricia S. Joyce (D).[5][6]

Education

Joyce received her undergraduate degree from Southeast Missouri State University in 1976 and her J.D. from St. Louis University School of Law in 1979.[2]

Career

Awards and associations

  • Member, St. Joseph Cathedral
  • Member, Chief Justice Advisory Council
  • Member, State Judicial Records Committee
  • Member, Circuit Court Budget Committee
  • Member, Missouri Association of Drug Court Professionals[2]

Noteworthy cases

Missouri Amendment 3 (2020)

See also: Petitioners of Clean Missouri v. Nonpartisan demographer

On May 18, 2020, petition circulators for Clean Missouri, the campaign that sponsored Missouri Amendment 1 (2018), filed a lawsuit arguing that the ballot title of the proposed amendment was misleading because it did not mention the elimination of the nonpartisan demographer, which was the office established by Amendment 1 to conduct legislative redistricting in the state. Plaintiffs argued, "The General Assembly’s proposed summary statement fails to disclose that [the amendment] would eliminate the Nonpartisan State Demographer authorized to draw redistricting maps—the key mechanism voters approved to remedy partisan gerrymandering—in addition to falsely representing" that the measure would create independent commissions. The lawsuit asked the Cole County circuit judge to rewrite the ballot title or order the General Assembly to do so. Senator Dan Hegeman (R), the sponsor of the amendment, said that he was confident the ballot title would be held up in court.[7][8]

On August 17, 2020, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Patricia S. Joyce ruled in favor of the petitioners and rewrote the ballot title originally drafted by the Missouri General Assembly. In her ruling, Joyce argued that "While SJR 38 proposes several other changes to Article Ill of the Constitution, all of them pale in comparison to the scope and magnitude of undoing a recent voter mandate to change Missouri's legislative redistricting rules. The 'central purpose' or 'primary objective' of SJR 38 is to effectively repeal Amendment 1. Accordingly, the summary statement must alert voters to that change in some fashion. Instead, the General Assembly's statement does not mention the change at all. It is insufficient, unfair, and must be rewritten." State officials requested an appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals.[9]

See also

External links

Footnotes