UPDATE: Anti-Missouri Plan group now seeks direct election of judges
UPDATE: James Harris says his group plans to only seek signatures for one of the two conflicting ballot initiatives, depending on which one gets through the court process. He says he doesn’t necessarily have a preference between the two initiatives, but said, “There are a lot of people that seem to like the idea of direct Democracy.”
JEFFERSON CITY — What’s clear is that a group opposed to how Missouri selects many of its top judges wants to change that process. But how they plan to do it got muddy today, as the group filed a second ballot initiative that conflicts with its first one.
ShowMe Better Courts, run by James Harris, a former aide to ex-Gov. Matt Blunt, filed a ballot initiative today that would change Missouri’s constitution so that judges are elected directly by voters. Previously, the group filed a ballot initiative that would put judicial selection in the hand of the governor, with Senate approval, much like the federal system.
In a news release, Harris blamed the state’s trial lawyers for controlling the current judicial selection process.
“We need better courts, and that is something we can only do through reform,” Harris said. He didn’t say in the news release which of his two proposals he preferred. He could not be reached for comment.
The Missouri Bar Association and other critics have consistently criticized Harris for failing to point to any real problems with Missouri’s judicial system, in terms of bad judges or bad rulings.
Should one plan or the other — or both — make the ballot, voters will be deciding in 2010 whether to scrap the current system, where a panel of judges, attorneys, and gubernatorial appointments cull down a list of judicial applicants, from which the governor chooses.
This method, known as the Missouri Plan, is in place for appellate courts, the Supreme Court, and circuit courts in St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield.
Sara J. Schuett, executive director of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, said she was perplexed by the group’s newest petition, especially since it seems to conflict with the previous filing.
“These guys can’t get any traction with one idea and so they throw another one up on the wall to see what sticks? I don’t know if they even know what they want anymore.”
Harris’ first petition might be tied up in court for awhile. A group of attorneys and former judges sued after it was filed, alleging legal problems with the petition’s wording.
You may want to change the headline on this post somehow. I realize that there is this thing called the “Missouri plan” and there are those who are against it. Nonetheless, when you call those people the “Anti-Missouri plan,” it makes it sound like they are conspiring against our fair state. Perhaps you might want to put quotes around the “Missouri plan” part so it reads “Anti-’Missouri plan’ group seeks…” or some such.
So, judges get to rule on whether a proposal to change how we hire judges is legal. I’m sure that’ll get a fair hearing. And even if one of these proposals actually makes it past the judges, I can imagine Robin Carnahan’s wording of the ballot summary … “The proposition would eliminate the nationally acclaimed ‘Missouri Plan’ which removed political factors from the selection of judges. It would replace it with direct election of judges, which would bring special interests, and their dirty campaigns, into a position of influencing our courts.”
I do not mean this to criticize any particular attorney or judge. Many of them are my friends. I do not support direct election of judges but I also feel that the trial bar has too much influence on the selection of judges. There has been an ebb and flow of this over the years but in sum total there is too much influence.
Elect Supreme Court Judges in Missouri? You mean, like they do in Illinois? Gee, it is difficult to imagine a surer way to “clean up” your judicial selection process than by copying from Illinois.
This is the same James Harris better known as “King James” to Republican inter circles during Matt Blunts rise to the top. Harris is the one who handed out Governor Blunts’ appointments, jobs, fee offices, commissions etc. passing over many loyal Republicans to reward his own personal cronies. Harris headed up the Blunt Transition Team and then actually worked for the Governor in Gov Blunts office while always keeping Jewell Patek, Garret Lott, and Terry Brady among others within arms reach. His cronies also included the now infamous Nathan Cooper of District 158 who apparently funneled monies through his State Rep committee to Harris’ private company. Then Harris would rewarded Coopers “clients” with Fee Office appointments. The talented Mr. Harris did all this work for the Gov while continuing to operate his political consulting firm from his home address. He had two paying jobs at one time. Finally Harris became such a political liability the Blunt Family did an inner circle coup d’ etat that dethroned King James. But they couldn’t make him mad. They knew they shouldn’t make him mad. And that’s why we still see James Harris bouncing about. It actually makes sense to Harris that we elect judges so that the Judges have to run campaigns. And they can hire James Harris to help them run those campaigns. It’s a jobs creation thingy.
The original Missouri Plan was adopted to reduce the influence of politcs in the selection of judges in St. Louis, Kansas City and to our appellate coiurts. There is o “trial lawyer influence” on the judicial commissions which select the three person panel from which the governor must ,make a choice. There are positions, in addition to the positions held by the general public and judges, which are elective among attorneys. If there are “trial lawyers” involved in the process, it is only because some may bave run for election to the circuit judicial commissions as any attorney in the district is allowed to run.
It only serves the interests of those which want to further inject politics into the judicial selection process to change or throw out the “Missouri Plan.” The plan has served so well than many states have adopted our plan for themselves. The “Missouri Plan” doesn’t need change or to be dumped.
“There are a lot of people that seem to like the idea of direct Democracy.” I have to give Mr. Harris credit for crafting his proposal in a way that can garner political support among the masses. After all, who would oppose “Democracy,” particularly direct democracy since it allows the “people” to decide issues themselves. However, there are simply times when direct democracy is not appropriate for solving issues. For example, setting aside any First Amendment problems, few of us would allow which religion we practice (or whether to practice one at all) to be submitted to a vote. Moreover, Mr. Harris seems to forget that the Framers of our Constitution eschewed direct democracy in part because it can allow majority groups to run roughshod over the rights of the minority. That’s why they established a representative form of government–a republic.
The Missouri Plan is not perfect; no system is. But these flaws pale in comparison to the problems with an elective system for choosing judges. The reason most federal judges are given life tenure is because they must be somewhat insulated from public opinion. What is popular is not always right, and vice-versa. Yet, when a judge is elected by the voters, he runs the risk of losing election for making a decision which–while it comports with the law and constitution–angers the public. Judges are supposed to be guardians of the Constitution. They cannot be if they are elected.