Missouri Injury Lawyers Blog

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently discussed non-partisan court plans in her Op-Ed article, "Take Justice Off the Ballot," published last week by the New York Times. Justice O'Connor defended a non-partisan court plan for selecting judges that includes public nominations and appointment of judges, followed by performance evaluations and followed up with a yes or no vote by the people.

Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, outlines a differing view in his recent Newsweek article entitled, "The Case for Electing Judges in Missouri." Notably, Professor Posner's differing view fails to mention that under merit selection plans votes do get to vote on the judges.

Our view is that the Missouri plan has produced well qualified ethical judges under both republican and democratic administrations. Changing to a pure electoral system will serve only the rich and powerful.

Supreme Court and Appellate Judges are selected under the Missouri non-partisan plan for selecting judges. The Missouri plan has become a model for other states because it avoids the interjection of politics, money and special interests into the judiciary.

Unfortunately, some powerful interests want to undo the non-partisan court plan so they can install judges that are loyal to their political views. This would be the worst possible outcome for fairness in our Missouri courts. Recently, Chief Justice William Ray Price, Jr. of the Missouri Supreme Court delivered the State of Judiciary Address. This quote from his speech is something every Missourian should read and take to heart.

"When the people of Missouri walk into our courtrooms, they expect and deserve to have their individual case heard on its facts and on the law, without fear that a rich man or a powerful interest has already bought the promise of the judge to rule the other way. Justice is rendering to each litigant what he or she is entitled to, not using his or her case as a stepping stone for fundraising or as a stepping stone for the advancement of a particular ideological or political goal, or as payback to a contributor."

Chief Justice Price's words speak volumes about the intent to dismantle Missouri's non-partisan court plan. If you care about fairness and justice in our court systems, contact your legislator and let them know that you support the Missouri non-partisan court plan and do not want it changed.

You may or may not be familiar with the phrase "tort reform." Wikipedia defines tort reform as "proposed changes in the civil justice system that would reduce tort litigation or damages." What is "Tort?" It is a system within our laws set up to compensate injured parties for harm done to them by someone or something else. Limiting tort litigation doesn't necessarily sound like a bad thing, until you start to think about what tort reform really means for Americans.

In recent years, proponents of tort reform have focused particular attention on personal injury law, crying foul when an injured person is awarded a large verdict amount. According to a recent article by Andrew Cohen, corporations have brainwashed millions of Americans into believing that tort reform will save them from the greedy trial lawyers who are getting these big verdicts. Cohen writes that in truth, the verdicts are decided upon by everyday people--the jurors who sat and listened to the injuries caused by a corporations' wrongdoing and voted to award a big verdict to help offset the cost of medical expenses and lost wages the claimant had suffered. "Each time a jury awards a large sum to a plaintiff against a negligent defendant, it's a statement from jurors that the sort of conduct alleged and proven is worthy of punishment by the community."

Now, if you think about big corporations and what would be in their best interest to lobby for, tort reform is the perfect solution in two ways. First, they convince millions of Americans that the trial lawyers who help them right their wrongs are the bad guy. Then, they lobby the legislators to change the laws so that consumers have such a limited ability to recover damages that they can no longer find attorneys willing to help them try. According to Forbes reporter Daniel Fisher, tort reform is "A catchall phrase for legislative measures designed to make it harder for individuals to sue businesses."

Now thanks to tort reform, instead of fostering an environment of corporate responsibility and an incentive for carefulness, the American people will no longer have a level playing field to fight against big businesses. Do you really want your elected representatives to vote away your right to recover when someone injures you?