Poll Shows Missourians Overwhelmingly Want to Keep Politics and Campaign Money Out of Missouri’s Highest Courts

Voters Say No to Proposed Constitutional Amendments that Would Repeal The Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan

Originally posted on October 24, 2013

JEFFERSON CITY, MO – A new survey of Missouri registered voters shows that new efforts to repeal the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan and replace it with partisan elections and unlimited campaign contributions would be overwhelmingly rejected. At the time of the survey, conducted October 10-11, only 18% of registered voters planned to vote yes, while 58% planned to vote no.

“This poll confirms that Missourians still have no appetite for giving political parties or special interests greater power to pick Missouri judges,” said Skip Walther, MFICC Treasurer and former Missouri Bar President. “Missouri voters see right through these attempts by partisan machines and special interests to give themselves more power by injecting partisan politics and unlimited campaign money into our state’s highest courts.”

The proposed constitutional amendments, which have been approved for circulation by the Secretary of State’s office, would replace Missouri’s Nonpartisan Court Plan with partisan elections of judges for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of Missouri, plus increase the number of judges on the Supreme Court from seven to nine.

The poll also found voters are concerned about injecting partisan politics into the courts. Fewer than one out of three voters favor the proposed amendments when they are told that the non-partisan merit selection process will be repealed and replaced by partisan elections.

Plus, Missouri voters are vastly opposed to judicial candidates soliciting campaign contributions. Of note, 85% of voters, including 79% who hold the position strongly, oppose allowing judicial candidates to solicit campaign contributions, especially from parties who may have ongoing or future business in front of the court.

According to “The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2009–2010,”election spending on state high court races has soared in recent years, more than doubling from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in 2000-2009.

“Missouri’s nonpartisan court plan has been a model for the nation because it ensures that judges are beholden to the constitution, not political parties or campaign contributors,” said Walther. “Missouri voters have said it before and will say it again – justice is not for sale in Missouri.”

States that elect their judges, such as Illinois and West Virginia, highlight the conflicts of interest associated with campaign contributions. One such scandal resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2009 that a West Virginia judge should have disqualified himself from an appeal of a $50 million jury verdict against Massey Energy Co. because the company’s CEO had contributed more than $3 million to the judge.

The poll was conducted by 20/20 Insight on behalf of Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts. It surveyed 445 registered voters by telephone. These voters broadly represent the state demographically and regionally. The margin of error for registered voter responses in this survey is +/- 4.6%.

Missourians have repeatedly turned back attempts to overturn Missouri’s Nonpartisan Court Plan, the most recent was the overwhelming defeat (76% voting no) of Amendment 3 in 2012.

Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts is comprised of retired judges and a broad coalition of community-based organizations that support Missouri’s Nonpartisan Court Plan. In its 73rd year, the plan has produced judges who are accountable to the law, the Constitution and the notion of fair and impartial justice for all. The plan secures high-quality judges in the least political way and ultimately gives the people the final say through retention elections.