THE PUBLIC MIND: VOTERS SHOULD BECOME INFORMED ABOUT PORTIO OF BALLOT CONCERNING JUDGE RETENTION

To the Editor:

I can't recall ever having written a letter to the editor. However, in this year of the negative political arena, I feel moved to do so in order to address a matter which I consider to be of extreme importance, the judicial retention ballot under the Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan. In our area this relates only to appellate level judges.

There has been a heightened level of media attention to the issue of these judges this year. However, because the judges are prohibited from campaigning, because almost all other campaigns have been run in a negative manner, because we see on our local television stations campaigns for judges in other states, and because the average voter does not come into contact with these judges, there is the possibility for a substantial amount of misinformation or lack of understanding. Those judges which will appear on our local ballot are those who presently sit on our Missouri Supreme Court, the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District and the Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District. It is these judges to whom matters on appeal from our geographic area would go depending upon the issue.

Our appellate court judges run on their record. That is, the question presented to the voter as he/she enters the booth is whether or not Judge X shall be retained in office. I think most would agree that the de-politicizing of this election issue is for the best. We are blessed in Missouri because the caliber of our judges on the appellate bench across the board can be characterized as nothing less than exceptional. This becomes very clear if viewed from a national perspective. In Missouri we don't need to look further than neighboring states where appellate judges do campaign for their office and the result can be reflected in a well known, less than qualified (to be charitable) individual assuming a position within the appellate judiciary.

It is therefore my concern that because voters are being geared to a negative disposition of "throw the rascals out" and some confusion about who these judges are that the result will be to simply vote against them.

I am not writing to suggest a particular vote on any particular judge. I am writing to suggest and urge the voting public to consider as a proposition that before a judge who has won his position through a process which insures close scrutiny of ability, personality and background, should receive a negative vote and therefore be put out of office, that there should be a good reason in the voter's mind to vote against that individual. Stated slightly differently, if a voter is not well enough informed to have a reason to vote in the negative, then the balance should be in favor of retaining the judge in office.

As you are probably aware, those most familiar with these judges and those who might be more critical and cynical as to the question of their retention, the practicing attorneys who appear before them, have been polled on the question of their retention. Most of the judges have received approval ratings of over 80 percent (on average 82~). Therefore eight out of ten lawyers who are asked would respond that these judges should be retained. When you can get that kind of approval from lawyers, I think it speaks volumes.

None of these judges are those who are responsible for the criticism which we often hear about the judiciary. While there are many in our state who would confuse these judges with those who are involved in the so-called "desegregation cases," this is not the case. Rather these are the kinds of judges that hold office at the same level of our former local circuit judges now appellate judges, Stan Grimm and Steve Limbaugh. One of those running is our own Kenneth Shrum of Marble Hill. In my personal opinion, each of these judges uphold and represent the same high standards of Judges Grimm and Limbaugh, a fact which, if that opinion were shared by the voter, would certainly recommend retention in each case. Most of the appellate judges have provided long histories of community service in addition to their background in the law. They are civic leaders, church members, service club members, lodge members, and generally worthy individuals who we can be thankful have accepted the positions which they hold at a substantial loss to their earning capacities.

If we are to maintain the same high standards of judicial ability which we have experienced in our state appellate judiciary to this date, and I assure you it is a record of which we can be proud, it is important that we retain those who have laid down their mantle of professional practice and accepted the responsibility of impartial arbitrators in this most important branch of our system of government.

In closing, I would sincerely urge those who vote to become informed on this portion of our ballot about which they will hear relatively little before they cast their vote.

Joe T. Buerkle

Cape Girardeau