NEWS CLIPS

Not for Sale

In the bad old days in Missouri, someone wanting to become a judge would take his hat in hand and make a pilgrimage to a nondescript building at 1908 Main Street in Kansas City. He would climb the stairs to the second floor and seek an audience with Thomas J. Pendergast, head of the Jackson Democratic Club and the most powerful political boss the state has ever known.

Not surprisingly, abuses and corruption were rampant. So in 1940, voters adopted the Non-Partisan Selection of Judges Court Plan. Under it, state Supreme Court and appeals court judges, as well as circuit court judges in Missouri’s metropolitan areas, are appointed by the governor from lists submitted by non-partisan judicial commissions. Their responsibility is to choose candidates on a merit system. Once appointed, the judges stand for retention every few years, but they no longer run in partisan elections.

Now the Missouri Plan, which has been adopted in whole or in part by more than 30 other states, is under fire in its home state. If its opponents are successful, the time may come again when someone wanting to become a judge will have take hat in hand and make a pilgrimage to political bosses, whatever their party at the time, to big-money campaign contributors and to well-heeled, well-connected lobbyists.

Among the groups pushing the abandonment of the Missouri Plan is the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the state’s biggest business lobby. Next year, the chamber and other pro-business groups are expected ask the Legislature to place a measure on the November 2008 ballot that would re-politicize the way judges are selected.

The proximate cause was a state Supreme Court decision last month. The court found that the Missouri constitution guarantees collective bargaining rights to unions representing public employees. "This ruling doesn’t help the cause of those who say the Missouri Plan is working just fine," chamber president Dan Mehan said after the decision was announced.

Missouri isn’t the only state where business groups are unhappy with the courts. A new study by the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics says that "special interest pressure is metastasizing into a permanent national campaign against impartial justice."

The trend is as clear as it is disturbing: In 2006, in state Supreme Court elections in the 39 states that elect at least some of their judges, business interests contributed $15 million to some 88 candidates — more than twice the $7 million contributed by lawyers’ groups. The median amount raised by candidates for state Supreme Court positions rose about 20 percent from the 2004 elections to $244,000.

For the most part, the money bought TV ads, which, in turn, brought the same kind of mean-spirited, misleading, personal attack politics to judicial races that has come to disgrace state legislative races. The more money a candidate spent, the more likely he or she was to win. Although the success rate seems to be declining — voters often express disgust with the attack ads — the high spenders won in 68 percent of the judicial races in 2006. That still makes them a good investment for contributors who can look forward to having a friend on the bench. The benefit for the rest of society is less clear.

There was better news in the new study, however. In 2006, campaigns in five states tried to amend constitutions to alter the composition or workings of state courts. All five efforts failed. "Most Americans," the report concluded, "will reject political tampering with the courts if it is called to their attention."

The truth is that the Missouri Plan has worked well, and not just for Missouri. Instead of looking to undermine it, state lawmakers should consider expanding it to the 110 counties where Missouri judges still are chosen in ever more expensive partisan election campaigns. Justice shouldn’t be for sale.