Stanley Cox

Updated to include news releases on the subject.

JEFFERSON CITY — Last week, House Democrats voted against taking away power from the governor. This week, they voted against giving him more power.

The House gave first-round approval to a resolution that would change how some Missouri judges are selected. A similar resolution also got first-round approval but failed on its final reading last year.

Proponents say the resolution would bring openness and voter input to the Missouri Plan, the method by which judges, including those on the Supreme Court, are chosen.

Opponents say that the resolution isn’t substantially different from the resolution voted down last year and that it addresses a nonexistent problem.

The resolution would give the governor and the Senate more power in appointing some judges, including those on the Supreme Court. If approved by both chambers, it would go to a vote of the people then become part of the state Constitution.

Sponsor Rep. Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia, said the changes give power over the judicial process to the people.

“I believe that citizens should be involved in the process, and right now they are an afterthought,” he said. Cox also said the current plan creates an “elitist” process wherein only three people can be considered for a spot on the Supreme Court.

And Rep. Ed Emery, R-Lamar, said it doesn’t go far enough.

“Probably the most damaging thing about the selection process today is that it no longer has any cracks where the public can get involved,” he said.

But Democrats said Cox couldn’t point to any judge appointed or decision made under the plan. Minority Floor Leader Paul Levota of Independence said the resolution was “trampling on the Constitution.”

Rep. Jake Zimmerman, D-Olivette, asked for a quick debate and said this bill is essentially the same as last year’s bill.

“The fact, is we are a model for the rest of the nation,” he said. “The fact is, they call it the Missouri Plan everywhere else they use it for a reason. The fact is that it works.”

Former judge Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, asked proponents to name a bad judge on the Supreme Court.

“The system has been a resounding, overwhelming success,” he said. “Ethical talented people from both sides of the aisle have been chosen.”

Opponents also noted that many lawyer organizations oppose the bill, including the Missouri Bar.

The resolution was approved 82 to 72.

Update: House Democrats spokesman Marc Powers just sent me a list of representatives who voted no or present on the second vote last year and flipped this year.

Democrats

• Curt Dougherty (present last year)
• Jamilah Nasheed

Republicans

• Ellen Brandom
• Bill Deeken
• Charlie Denison
• Gary Dusenburg
• Barney Fisher
• Jeff Grisamore
• Jim Guest
• Will Kraus (present last year)
• Bob Nance
• Bryan Pratt
• Darrell Pollock
• Ryan Silvey

And Better Courts for Missouri, a group created to change the Missouri Plan, sent out the following release:

James Harris, Executive Director of Better Courts for Missouri, echoed the optimism of the organization, saying, “We applaud house leadership for encouraging the passage of this important, commonsense legislation. We thank all the true patriots who supported this bill and demonstrated their willingness to stand up to powerful special interest groups and the elite legal establishment to do what is right. The days of Judge Laura Denvir Stith being the lapdog of ambulance chasers are coming to an end. Missourians deserve better, and with today’s house action we are one step closer to a fair and impartial judiciary.”

An opposing group, Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts, also released a statement from former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronnie White:

“The Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan protects our courts from total control by politicians and political parties – putting fairness and qualifications over partisanship.  The proposal, approved by the House, is nothing short of a power grab by politicians and special interest groups.   The measure would only weaken Missouri’s judicial system by injecting more politics and greater influence of politicians into judicial selection.”