Missouri Plan for Selecting Judges: Merit Selection Explained
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.
- Historical Background of the Missouri Plan: Political abuses prompt 1940 nonpartisan court reform
- How the Missouri Plan Works: Committee nominations, governor appointment, retention votes
- Commission Structure in Missouri: Appellate and circuit judicial commissions explained
- Retention Elections and Judicial Performance Evaluation: Voters assess judges via performance criteria and ballots
- Controversy and Debate Over Merit Selection: Supporters vs. critics on politics in judicial selection
- Research on the Plan's Effectiveness: Show-Me Institute study compares Missouri to other states
- Conclusion: Missouri Plan recommended for broader national adoption
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper moves logically from historical context to mechanics, then to evaluation, giving readers a clear foundation before engaging with the controversy.
- It balances competing perspectives — proponents of merit selection versus critics who see the process as inherently political — without dismissing either side.
- The inclusion of the Show-Me Institute study adds an empirical dimension, grounding the policy discussion in comparative data across states.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates descriptive policy analysis: it explains a governmental mechanism in operational detail (committee composition, timelines, voting thresholds) and then evaluates it against alternative systems using external research. This technique — describe, then assess — is a foundational approach in public administration and political science writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with historical origins (1930s political abuses, 1940 ballot initiative), moves through a detailed description of the plan's procedures and commission structures, addresses the retention and evaluation process, surveys the longstanding debate over merit selection, reviews comparative research findings, and closes with a normative conclusion favoring wider adoption of the plan. Each section builds on the previous one, making the argument cumulative rather than fragmented.
Historical Background of the Missouri Plan
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.).
How the Missouri Plan Works
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).
References
Goldschmidt, J. (1994). Merit selection: Current status, procedures & issues. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/howshould/merit.html
Kelly, W. (n.d.). Show-Me Institute study: State of Missouri's court plan as good as any. St. Louis Daily Record (MO).
Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=297
Missouri Plan. (2011). Retrieved from
Missouri Plan. (2011). Retrieved from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.