Missouri Judicial Elections
Updated11/11/02
1. Article reports that “a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court freeing judicial
candidates to comment on political issues will have an immediate impact in
Missouri,” according to experts. Lincoln County Associate Circuit Judge Patrick
S. Flynn said, “I think immediately, between now and August, there will be a
decision made by all judicial candidates as to whether it will be politically
advantageous to announce their views on political issues. The decision will have a
sweeping impact.” Noting that he will wait for “guidance from the Missouri
Supreme Court or the ethics commission,” Cooper County Associate Circuit
Judge Kenton G. Askren said, “Not many associate circuit judges deal with life or
death issues such as abortion but that will become a hot-button issue as to their
ability to be a judge. And they do not have the regular day-to-day jurisdiction of
death penalty cases but they will now be asked about it and it will be difficult to
explain that most of them never deal with it.” Stephanie S. Maniscalco, Judicial
Candidates Are Now Free to Talk Politics, Missouri Lawyers Weekly, July 8,
2002.
2. Column reports that the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down
Minnesota’s canon restricting judicial candidate speech “threatens to wreak havoc
with Missouri’s nonpartisan court plan.” Under the Missouri plan, which was
adopted in 1940 to “reduce the role of money and politics in judicial elections and
assure the independence of the judiciary,” certain judges face retention elections
instead of contested elections. Although those judges are allowed to respond to
“active opposition,” they have not, until now, been allowed to speak about
“disputed legal issues.” According to the Missouri Bar, it is not clear whether the
Supreme Court’s decision applies to judges “retained in office” under the
Missouri Plan. Dan Margolies, Ruling Throws a Wrench into the Missouri Plan,
Kansas City Star, July 16, 2002.
3. Article reports that “Missouri judicial candidates will be able to speak out on
disputed legal issues this year under a decision” by the state Supreme Court,
which acted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision striking
down a Minnesota canon that limited the speech of judicial candidates. The
Missouri decision applies only to judges in contested elections or in retention
elections with active opposition. Theresa Levings, president of the Missouri Bar,
noted that the potential range of issues that could be discussed is “endless,” but
added, “I am hopeful it won’t have much of an effect,” since candidates do not
have to talk about hot-button issues. Both state parties voiced support for the
looser rules. Associated Press, Missouri Judicial Candidates Cleared to Speak on
Issues, Jefferson City News Tribune, July 19, 2002.
Missouri
1
4. Article reports on retired Osage County (Missouri) Judge Ralph Voss, who has
launched a “solo campaign against absurd lawsuits, outrageous attorney fees and
runaway jury awards.” “If the complaints aren’t new, what’s raising eyebrows is
their source – a career judge – and his proposed solution: Voters should oust five
high-ranking judges in retention elections on Nov. 5.” If that happens, “the system
will be shocked into reform,” Voss argues, since “the responsibility for the system
rests with the Supreme Court judges and the judges at the courts of appeals.”
Critics “say the campaign is misguided because the judiciary doesn’t set rules
governing trial venue and attorney fees.” They also note that “the judges Voss
wants removed all won at least 79 percent approval from attorneys surveyed this
year by the Missouri Bar Association.” Shashank Bengali, Retired Judge
Campaigns for Changes in Missouri Judicial System, Kansas City (Missouri) Star,
October 22, 2002.
Missouri
2