Seventy years ago, as a consequence of widespread political corruption, Missouri adopted a plan to keep politics out of judicial selection. The Non-Partisan Court Plan spreads power between groups so that none of them, including the governor and the court, have control over who becomes an appellate judge. It has worked well: 34 other states have adopted it in some fashion and it is known nationwide as “the Missouri Plan.” Courts here have seen little of the scandal that plagues other jurisdictions.
In November, Amendment 3 seeks to change our system that has served the people of Missouri so well for 70 years. While seemingly nominal, the net effect of the proposal gives the governor practical control over all appellate judges without real limitation. Large quantities of out-of-state money flooded the Missouri legislature this past year to make sure the proposal was put on the ballot. Missouri, as the founder of the Non-Partisan concept, is the natural target for those who want to control courts nationwide by controlling politicians that appoint judges. We - you and I - must not let this happen.
So, why do you as a physician care?
Recently, the Missouri Supreme Court decided Watts v. Cox Medical Center, SC91867, invalidating the legislation creating “caps” on non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits. The Supreme Court stated the legislation violates constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to a jury trial. A natural reaction is to “kill the messenger.” In Watts though, the Court followed a long-standing and widely accepted rule that legislative actions cannot be contrary to the constitution.
The Legislature has to follow the rules: i.e. the state constitution. Otherwise legislatures would outlaw speech, religions, protests, and so on. The supreme law of our state, the Missouri Constitution, always rules: it is a contract between the citizen and the government. It protects us from government. The fact that the Supreme Court enforced that protection is exactly why you should care. Otherwise we are all subject to the whims of ever-changing legislatures.
It’s important to understand that the Court did not support or oppose the policy of damage caps, such is not their place. Rather the Court told the Legislature to follow the well accepted rules about such changes: adopt the proposal, put it on the ballot and let the public vote. The Legislature tried a short cut and, as most of us know, short cuts are never short.
Simply put, shooting the messenger does not fix the problem. The Legislature still has to follow the rules.
Why the civics discussion?
I anticipate those who want to control judicial appointments may highlight Watts in an attempt to sway votes about Amendment 3. Whatever your beliefs, adopting Amendment 3 would not mean a different result in the Court, and probably would mean a worse one. The Court that handed down the decision was very diverse, some Democrat, some Republican, some liberal, some conservative, but none owed an allegiance to any politician. What adopting Amendment 3 would do is concentrate the power over the judiciary in the executive. Take a moment to imagine a court indebted to a governor for appointment and a governor adverse to the medical community. Now you get an idea of the consequences of passing Amendment 3. Yet another reason you should care and oppose this change.
The biggest loser under Amendment 3 is the public, particularly business interests. This change causes justice to revert to the “who you know” standard. Money and politics are inextricably intertwined. Those who have money and the consequential ear of the executive will greatly influence who becomes a judge. Ability and impartiality will take a back seat to political expediency. The public, particularly businesses who are the biggest users of the courts, will not get courts staffed with the best judges, just the most political ones.
Big money had control of Missouri courts for years before the Non-Partisan Plan was adopted, and it did not turn out well. Amendment 3 takes us back to those bad old days. It was a disaster before, it will be one now.
As a medical professional, small business owner and leader of your community, you will need to choose between a stable judiciary or one that can be bought through the office of future governors. I encourage you to stand for a judicial system that is free of politics and does not serve as a political weapon for moneyed interests. Judges should be referees, not combatants for any cause except the rule of law. Vote no on Amendment 3.
Biography
Patrick B.Starke is the Missouri Bar Association President-Elect. Services at the Starke Law Office in Blue Springs, Mo., include personal injury, criminal, and workers’ compensation.
Contact: info@starkelawoffices.com
