NO LAWYER LAWMAKERS? THE IDEA JUST WON'T FLY

Giving ourselves over to the democratic process, we must first accept that in the broad spectrum of thought, there are good ideas and bad ones. The challenge of representative government is to distinguish between the two. U.S. Rep. Joe Kenton's proposed constitutional amendment to ban lawyers from service in the Missouri legislature should be recognized promptly as a bad idea. Excluding a group of people from elective office solely because of vocation is too absurd to even be regarded as dangerous.

Lawyers take considerable abuse in our society. (They might be appreciative that an offensive genre of blonde humor has now made attorneys a secondary butt of jokes in our culture.) Some of the defamation is earned, America being a nation awash in litigation and lawyers being a fuel in that process. For the most part, however, lawyers are educated and ethical, competent and concerned, and there is no reason to segregate them from the governmental process.

Kenton thinks differently. His amendment speaks to his concern that "lawyers making laws" constitutes a significant conflict of interest. "I wonder," he said at a committee hearing on his measure last week, "if it would be appropriate if the chairman of the agriculture committee was employed by the Farm Bureau?" His question stumbles across the heart of this measure's problem: the amendment wouldn't speak to farmers serving on agriculture committees or union members serving on labor committees, but only to lawyers.

By intent, the General Assembly is a cross-section of the people of this state. Some Missourians are lawyers. In the Missouri legislature, nine of 34 senators and 23 of 163 representatives are lawyers. This translates to about 16 percent of the legislature, or roughly the same percentage of lawyers in state legislatures across the country. While it is inevitable that some conflicts will arise in the debate and passage of laws that directly impact the livelihoods of attorneys, lawyers do not sustain a large enough bloc of votes even assuming they see eye to eye on an issue to approve legislation that doesn't have the broader interest of Missouri citizens as its core.

We would abhor seeing a legislative body packed with lawyers, just as we would hate seeing a legislature overrun with teachers or farmers or journalists. However, we carry a much greater distaste for efforts to limit the participation of a singular profession. This measure does not deserve serious consideration.