This paper examines Missouri's Nonpartisan Court Plan, a merit-based judicial selection system first adopted by Missouri voters in 1940 in response to political abuses in the state's judiciary. The paper explains how the plan works — from nomination committees and gubernatorial appointment to retention elections and judicial performance evaluations — and describes the commission structures used for appellate and circuit courts. It also surveys the ongoing debate between supporters who view merit selection as a check on political influence and critics who argue the process remains inherently political, concluding with a review of research suggesting Missouri's system performs as well as any alternative method of judicial selection.
During the 1930s, the public became increasingly displeased with the growing role of politics in judicial selection and judicial decision-making. Judges were inundated by outside pressures due to the political nature of the election process, and court dockets were overcrowded because of the time judges spent campaigning. In November 1940, voters amended the Missouri constitution by adopting the Nonpartisan Selection of Judges Court Plan. This plan was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. Its acceptance through initiative referendum resulted from a public backlash against the widespread abuses of the judicial system by the political machine in Kansas City and by the political control exercised by ward bosses in St. Louis (Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, n.d.).
The Missouri Plan is a judicial selection process used by certain states in the United States. The plan combines an appointment procedure with the popular vote. Under the plan, a selection committee provides the Governor of the state with the names of three candidates for a judicial office. If the Governor selects one of the candidates within sixty days, that person is appointed to the bench for one year; if not, the committee makes the selection and appointment. After one year, the justice runs unopposed on the next general election ballot. If voters support retention, the justice serves the number of years specified for that position in the state's constitution. If voters reject retention, the selection process begins again.
Initially, twelve states used the Missouri Plan to fill appeals-level judicial vacancies: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. Tennessee, Florida, and California use individual variations on the plan (Missouri Plan, 2011).
In Missouri, a nonpartisan judicial commission evaluates 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 chosen by members of the Missouri Bar, 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, along with two lawyers chosen by the bar and two citizens chosen by the governor. All lawyers and citizens serving on a commission must reside within the circuit they serve (Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, n.d.).
The nonpartisan plan gives voters an opportunity to have a say in the retention of judges selected under the plan. Once a judge has served in office for at least one year, that judge must stand for a retention election during the next general election. The judge's name is placed on a separate judicial ballot with no political party designation, and voters decide whether to retain the judge based on his or her judicial record. A judge must receive a majority of votes to be retained for a full term of office. This vote serves as an additional accountability mechanism to help ensure judicial quality. If a judge retires or resigns during or at the end of their term, the resulting vacancy is filled under the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan (Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, n.d.).
In order to inform voters about the performance of nonpartisan judges, judicial performance evaluation committees — composed of both lawyers and non-lawyers — are established to evaluate objective criteria, including surveys completed by lawyers and jurors who have direct, personal knowledge of the judges. Judges are rated according to judicial performance principles that examine whether they: administer justice neutrally and consistently; make decisions based on sound legal analysis and appropriate application of the law; issue rulings that can be clearly understood; efficiently and professionally manage their courtrooms and administrative duties, including whether they issue decisions promptly; and act with fairness, integrity, honesty, and courage. The results of these judicial performance evaluations are then distributed to the public (Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, n.d.).
"Supporters vs. critics on politics in judicial selection"
"Show-Me Institute study compares Missouri to other states"
It appears from the research that has been done that the Missouri Plan is working as it was intended when it was implemented, and that no alternative approach has been shown to work better. Those who favor merit selection offer it as a preferable option to the politics and fundraising inherent in judicial elections, while those opposed maintain that the appointive process is itself political and that citizens have a right to elect their judges.
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.