NATIONALLY REGARDED COURT PLAN AT RISK

The increasing number of "No" votes against incumbent appellate and urban-area circuit judges in recent years has finally caught the attention of Missourians interested in preserving the independence and integrity of the state's judicial system. It's about time, for if the trend continues it won't be long until some of Missouri's outstanding jurists are voted out of office and the state's nationally regarded nonpartisan plan is left in shambles.

The so-called Missouri Plan, which is now in effect in more than 60 percent of the states, will observe its 52nd anniversary next month. It was in 1940 that voters in the state, weary of partisan judges who too often were controlled by political rather than legal considerations, gladly approved a nonpartisan plan for appellate courts as well as circuit court districts that wished to participate. In so doing, Missouri became a national leader in court reform, earning for its citizens both respect and admiration from other states that were still mired in politically infested courts.

Under provisions of the plan, judges of the Missouri Supreme Court, the state's three courts of appeal and circuit judges in the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas are no longer forced to seek their office as candidates of a political party. After their initial nomination by a nonpartisan commission and their selection by the governor, judges are listed on subsequent ballots for retention. Voters are simply asked whether these judges should be kept in office for another term.

A growing populist antagonism to incumbent officeholders has seen a decreasing number of voters cast ballots to retain some of the state's outstanding jurists. It is not that voters have information that the judge in question is not fulfilling the duties of his office or that information detrimental to his character has been uncovered. Voters have whimsically voted against judges because of disenchantment with government in general and the judicial system in particular.

This is not the way any thinking Missourian wants his courts to be administered. Most Missourians want their judges to be as qualified, as competent and as independent of political considerations as possible. Where the nonpartisan court plan has been in effect, this is what Missourians have received: a qualified, competent and independent judiciary. This was the goal of the Missouri Plan when it was devised and this was the goal sought by voters when they approved the system back in 1940.

This questioning by the public, as cynical as it might be, has nevertheless produced a greater awareness by the state's legal profession that something needs to be done to increase both awareness and appreciation for the nonpartisan system. Recently the legal profession named a Citizens For Missouri's Courts committee to spearhead a public information campaign on the advantages of the nonpartisan system, and this group has undoubtedly made progress in re-educating Missourians on the value of the plan they approved more than a half century ago.

The information panel has said that if the public is not made more aware of the advantages of the present system, many of the 45 judges who will stand for retention at next month's general election will be at risk. We don't believe the committee is exaggerating in the slightest the potential danger that exists. For one thing, Missourians will be voting on an ill-advised term limitation proposal that would restrict members of the Missouri General Assembly to eight years in each chamber. While it has widespread support, the proposal actually works against the public interest in attracting and retaining competent, experienced legislators. But we suspect that scandals in the national Congress, and widespread general disillusionment with government as a whole, will lead to overwhelming approval of the term limitation referendum. Since retention of appellate judges will be voted on at the same time, there could well be a throw-the-rascals-out mood that would literally destroy the nonpartisan court plan.

This would result, with one fell swoop, in serious damage to two of the three branches of state government. Frankly, such an outcome would set back good government to a point that would require years of repair and restoration. Missouri needs as many good lawyers as it needs good legislators, and if voters are willing to restrict time served by their lawmakers, there is not much doubt about their willingness to limit the terms of competent and qualified members of their highest judiciary.

The times call for mature and wise judgment. We believe Missourians can meet both criteria.