HCS HJR 10 -- APPELLATE JUDICIAL COMMISSION

SPONSOR:  Jones, 89 (Cox)

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Special Committee on
General Laws by a vote of 9 to 4.

Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment
increases from three to four the number of judicial candidates
nominated by the Nonpartisan Judicial Commission for a vacancy in
the office of judge of specified courts from which the Governor
may make an appointment.  The Governor may veto the first list of
candidates provided by the commission within 60 days.  If the
panel of judicial candidates is vetoed, the commission must
submit a second list of nominees.  The Governor must choose a
candidate from the second list within 45 days or the commission
is authorized to appoint one of the nominees from the second
list.

The substitute changes the composition of nonpartisan judicial
commissions.  There will be eight members of the Appellate
Judicial Commission chosen as follows:

(1)  A justice of the Missouri Supreme Court and three members of
the Missouri Bar, each a resident from a different court of
appeals district, selected by the members of the Missouri Bar;

(2)  Three citizens who are not members of the bar and are each a
resident from a different court of appeals district, appointed by
the Governor; and

(3)  One citizen, from anywhere in the state, appointed by the
Governor.

Each circuit judicial commission will consist of six members to
be composed of the chief judge of the requisite district, two
attorney members elected by the Missouri Bar members residing in
the judicial circuit and three citizens residing in the judicial
circuit and appointed by the Governor.  The terms of all members,
two of who must not be Missouri Bar members, of the judicial
commissions will be four years.  Each appointment to the
Appellate Judicial Commission and circuit judicial commissions is
subject to the advice and consent of the Senate within 30
legislative days of the appointment by the Governor.

The new citizen member of either the appellate or a circuit
judicial commission may be chosen by the Governor on or after
January 15, 2013.  The term of all current judicial commissioners
will expire upon the effective date of the substitute, and
commissioners will be replaced according to the previously
described process.

The judicial selection process must favor openness and public
access.  All hearings, debates, and votes of the commissions must
be open to the public and to the press with no less than 72 hours
public notice given before each meeting.  The list of applicants
for any judicial vacancy must be open to the public with their
names posted on the web site of the Missouri Supreme Court and
all information available to the respective commissions on the
judicial candidates must be made available to the Governor.
Every applicant nominated will be subject to a background check,
including a criminal check, which will not be a public record,
but available only to the commission and the Governor.

The substitute transfers the responsibility for the approval of
expenses incurred in the administration of the judicial selection
plan from the Missouri Supreme Court to the Commissioner of the
Office of Administration.

FISCAL NOTE:  No impact on state funds in FY 2010, FY 2011, and
FY 2012.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that citizens should have greater
impact in the judicial selection process.  Many states have a
modified version of the Missouri Plan to allow greater citizen
involvement.  Since the Governor is elected, he or she should
have more input in the selection of commissioners.  The Open
Meetings and Records Law, commonly known as the Sunshine Law,
should apply to the judicial selection process.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Cox; Americans for
Prosperity and Foundation; Concerned Women for America of
Missouri; Janet Englebach; and Greg Hoberock.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that the Missouri
Supreme Court is not an activist court in need of change.  Very
few of its decisions split along party lines.  There is great
citizen support for the current Missouri Plan.  Commissioners
take their jobs seriously and do not act in a biased fashion when
presenting candidates for judicial office.  The requirement of
Senate confirmation may bias the process of judicial selection in
favor of the senators.  Some closed records are necessary to
ensure that the best candidates apply for judicial office.

Testifying against the bill were Douglas E. Abrams and Larry
Dessem, University of Missouri School of Law; David Octenberg,
University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law; Missouri Bar;
Randa Rawlins, Shelter Insurance; American Civil Liberties Union
of Eastern Missouri; Missouri National Education Association;
Missouri School Boards Association; League of Women Voters of
Missouri; Missouri AARP; Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys;
Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers; Missouri Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers; Justice Institute for Missouri; Greater
Kansas City Chamber of Commerce; Jerry Carmody; Kansas City Civic
Council; James O'Loughlin, Orscheln Industries; Landon Rowland;
and Lawrence Weber.

OTHERS:  Others testifying on the bill say that the Missouri Plan
is not perfect and should be discussed and reviewed.  The
commission should be accountable to lay persons.  The selection
process should be transparent.  Judges should not be on the
commission.

Testifying on the bill was William George Eckhardt, University of
Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.

Missouri House of Representatives
95th General Assembly, 1st Regular Session
Last Updated November 17, 2009 at 9:26 am