In Missouri, the process of selecting judges is a blend of appointments and elections, which can be confusing for voters. As election day approaches, it’s important to understand the distinction between elected and appointed judges, the influence of political leanings in the selection process, and the implications of judicial activism on our legal system.
Missouri Judges On The Ballot: Elected and Appointed
Elected Judges
Those who face other candidates must campaign like any other public office candidate, are typically identified as Democrat or Republican, and must make a case for their qualifications, just as with any other public office.
Appointed Judges
These judges are selected according to the Non-Partisan Judicial Plan, which means they are presented to the governor by a judicial commission. All higher judicial positions, such as the state supreme court and the appellate courts, along with certain circuit courts, are included in this plan.
When a vacancy occurs, a slate of three individuals, vetted by the commission, is sent to the governor, who selects one of them. This process is intended to “take the politics out of the process.” As a result, these judges not only abstain from campaigning, but they are also prohibited from activities or speech that might be perceived as such. However, the governor’s political leanings inevitably influence the process.
All Missouri state judges serve for a set number of years, depending on their position. At the end of each judge’s term, they may seek another term, as most do. Elected judges must campaign again in a political race. Appointed judges, on the other hand, are simply placed on the ballot with a question asking voters, “Shall [Judge’s Name] be retained in office?” (Yes/No).
Additionally, all newly appointed judges must be placed on the first general election ballot following their first full year of service, regardless of the term length for that judgeship. If retained by voters on their first ballot appearance, they serve a full term before facing the next retention vote. (There are no term limits for judges in Missouri.)
What Will I See on My Ballot?
Across the state, some voters will see only questions to retain certain judges with a “Yes” or “No” box to mark. Others will see a combination of these retention questions and races where local judgeships feature candidates running against opponents, like traditional elections.
Every Missouri voter in this November 5th general election will see two members of the state supreme court on their ballot, both of whom are facing their initial retention vote as recent appointees by Governor Parson. Additionally, voters in the Eastern Appellate District will see retention questions for six judges, while those in the Southern Appellate District will see two judges up for retention, and voters in the Western Appellate District will see three judges facing a “Yes” or “No” retention question.
Depending on where a voter lives, there may also be circuit and/or associate circuit judges on the ballot with similar retention questions. Of all the circuit court judges on the ballot in 2024, fifty-seven (57) are part of the Non-Partisan Court Plan.
All other judicial positions across the state are filled by elected judges. So, many voters will also see partisan races where candidates affiliated with political parties seek votes against opposing party candidates.
Who Can Help Me Understand the Judges on My Ballot?
In response to the frequently asked question of where to find information on judges, the reality is that no organization currently monitors and compiles this information in a way that would meet voters’ needs. While frustrating, it’s understandable. The costs of monitoring and compiling a quality rating system for all judges statewide are prohibitive, and there are no citizen watchdog groups capable of such an extensive task.
To properly rate our judges, a well-funded group would need to employ individuals who could observe every courtroom in Missouri, throughout every case that comes before these judges. These observers would need to be competent in every area of law involved in each case they monitor. They would also need to invest countless hours researching the legal aspects of each case. This undertaking would require a small army of legal professionals (or at least semi-professionals) to accurately evaluate each judge’s performance and judgments.
The issue is not whether you or I agree or disagree with any given judge or judgment. The primary analysis would need to focus on a dispassionate understanding of whether the judge adheres to the laws of the state of Missouri. If we approve of a given case’s outcome because of “judicial activism,” it would still be inappropriate, and the judge should be admonished. Similarly, if we are unhappy with a case’s outcome that results from “judicial restraint,” it would remain the correct decision, and our criticism should be directed at the legislature to change the law.
While we benefit from the United States having one of the best judicial systems in the world, it is still marred by various human-influenced flaws. Chief among these problems is “judicial activism,” where established law is ignored in favor of a judge’s emotional, personal, or political preferences. A judge’s integrity is best demonstrated by their “judicial restraint”—when they resist their own preferences and rule according to the dictates of established law.
Most of us may be inclined to excuse judicial activism when it touches us deeply and personally. However, this does not justify the practice of judicial activism, especially in a culture where the concept of “truth” is increasingly being eroded.
How Do I Evaluate These Judges?
Historically, our “American way of life” has been under attack since before the original thirteen colonies began to unite. The greatest threats to this nation have always been, and remain, ideologies that unravel the fabric of our society. These threats lead to disruptive conflicts and outright wars, both external and internal. And the ideology that erodes justice in our judiciary is judicial activism.
By the 1980s, judicial activism had become a significant and rapidly growing issue in American jurisprudence. This was when the problem became a political issue in Missouri. By the late 1980s, appointed judges in Missouri were receiving close scrutiny by governors with conservative leanings.
Governor Ashcroft (R) appointed judges from 1985-1992. The longer he served as governor, the more attention he paid to the pro-life perspectives and judicial philosophies of nominees. This focus has endured and even intensified over time. However, Governors Carnahan (D) and Wilson (D) maintained a strict progressive stance, focusing on pro-abortion candidates and denying the existence of “judicial activism” in appointments from 1993-2000. Governor Holden (D) continued this approach from 2001-2004.
Then came Governor Blunt (R), who challenged the Judicial Commission and the media, refusing entire slates of candidates proposed by the commission for their pro-abortion and activist stances. Despite considerable pressure, he succeeded in appointing only pro-life and judicially restrained judges from 2005-2008.
Governor Nixon (D) reversed this trend, appointing only pro-abortion judges who were more inclined toward judicial activism from 2009-2016.
We are now at the end of eight years under Governors Greitens (R) and Parson (R), who have worked to appoint pro-life and judicially restrained judges from 2017-2024.
So How Can You Know Which Way to Vote on These Judges?
One easy method is to perform a quick internet search using the phrase “MO judge appointed [full name].” On most devices, this search will yield a snippet showing the judge’s date of appointment and the governor who appointed them. Using the history of governors and their judicial appointments outlined above, you now have more information than most voters—so share this with others.
This approach may seem simplistic, and it is. While it’s not a perfect measure of a judge’s merits, it’s the best tool available for most voters. If you have additional valid information on judges, please verify it and share it with other voters.
But Does Any of This Matter?
Yes, absolutely. There are two fundamental reasons this matters.
Firstly, it’s important to realize that a significant number of voters don’t respond to judge retention questions. Among those who do, most vote “Yes” without fully understanding their choice. People often find it easier to stick with the familiar, even if it’s flawed, than to embrace the unknown. Thus, they’re more likely to vote “No” on a ballot proposal they don’t understand, while voting “Yes” on a sitting judge to avoid the uncertainty of change.
Although it’s rare for a judge to fail a retention vote, you now have the knowledge and tools to vote with confidence and a clear conscience. Whatever the outcome, you can be assured that you fulfilled your duty as a responsible citizen who cares enough to make an informed decision.
Secondly, striving to be a responsible and informed voter reminds us of the high honor of voting and our need to seek the Lord’s guidance.
Therefore:
PRAY! Pray for discernment and wisdom.
Pray for the Lord’s guidance and protection.Pray for our nation, our state, and our neighbors, whom we are called to love—even in the way we vote.
-Written by a friend of the Constitutional Coalition