From the Missouri court system:

SC92282 – SXR BOB JOHNSON, ETAL, REL V ROBIN CARNAHAN,RES (E-CASE)

Date Filed: 01/23/2012 Location: SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

Case Type: AP Writ of Prohibition Disposition: Case Disposed- By Order

From the docket entries:

SC92282 – SXR BOB JOHNSON, ETAL, REL V ROBIN CARNAHAN,RES (E-CASE)

01/26/2012   Case Disposed- By Order

  PER CURIAM ORDER ISSUED. SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. CAUSE DISPOSED BY PER CURIAM ORDER. ORDER: MOTION TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 84.22(A) SUSTAINED. UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION, AND FINDING THIS CASE, UNLIKE STATE EX REL. TEICHMAN VS. CARNAHAN, NO. SC92237, DECIDED JANUARY 17, 2012, INVOLVES DISPUSTED ISSUES OF FACT, THE PETITION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FILING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT COURT TO RESOLVE THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO PEARSON V. KOSTER, NO. SC92200, DECIDED JANUARY 17, 2012. UPON THIS MATTER BEING FILED IN THE CIRUCIT COURT, THAT COURT SHALL EXPEDITE THIS MATTER TO ENSURE A PROMPT DECISION IN THIS ELECTION CASE. SEE PEARSON V. KOSTER AND STATE EX REL. TEICHMAN VS. CARNAHAN.

Translation: This ain’t like the Senate redistricting which we threw out and we ordered them to start over. If you want to do so, file it in District Court. If this case is filed in that venue that court shall move quickly.

The parties in the case:

SC92282 – SXR BOB JOHNSON, ETAL, REL V ROBIN CARNAHAN,RES (E-CASE)

JOHNSON , BOB , Relator

BRAY , JOAN , Relator

GERLING , GEOFF , Relator

OTTO , BILL , Relator  

NETH , MYRON , Relator  

SALTER , KIT , Relator

SALTER , CATHY , Relator    

WORTHINGTON , JAMES , Relator  

NICHOLS , MARY FONTANA , Relator  

STEINMETZ , KURT , Relator

OSMAN , DAN , Relator

HOLLIGER , ROBERT , Relator  

HOLLIGER , WILLA , Relator  

COX , JEFF , Relator  

CARNAHAN , ROBIN , Respondent     represented by     MORGAN , JEREMIAH JOSEPH , Assistant Attorney General

STATE OF MISSOURI , Intervenor     represented by     LAYTON , JAMES ROBERT , Assistant Attorney General

Any bets on the start of filing for office being on time?

Mo. AG candidate files new suit contesting ballots

Associated Press – August 26, 2008 6:24 PM ET

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) – Losing Democratic attorney general candidate Margaret Donnelly has been rebuffed on procedural grounds by the Missouri Supreme Court in her quest for a review of uncounted ballot.

But Donnelly has quickly re-filed her lawsuit in Clay County Circuit Court…

tiny URL

So, the lawsuit was filed in Clay County:

08CY-CV08262 – MARGARET DONNELLY ET AL V SANDY COLLOP ET AL

Judge Assigned: HARMAN, LARRY DALE Date Filed: 08/26/2008

Location: Clay Case Type: CC Other Miscellaneous Actions

Disposition: Not Disposed

Who got sued?:

It’s a long list.

08CY-CV08262 – MARGARET DONNELLY ET AL V SANDY COLLOP ET AL

DONNELLY , MARGARET , Plaintiff     represented by     RHYNE , RICHARD DALY , Attorney for Plaintiff

68 LAKE FOREST DRIVE

SAINT LOUIS, MO 63117

2345 GRAND BOULEVARD

KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

DOE , JOHN , Plaintiff     represented by     RHYNE , RICHARD DALY , Attorney for Plaintiff

2345 GRAND BOULEVARD

KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

COLLOP , SANDY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF ADAIR COUNTY

106 W WASHINGTON, 2ND FLOOR

KIRKSVILLE, MO 63501

HARVEY , SHELLEY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF AUDRAIN COUNTY

101 N JEFFERSON, ROOM 101

MEXICO, MO 65265

CONWAY , PAT , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF BUCHANAN CO

411 JULES, ROOM 121

SAINT JOSEPH, MO 64501

REINHART , DAVE , Defendant    

CO-DIR OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF CLAY COUNTY

100 W MISSISSIPPI STREET

LIBERTY, MO 64068

EVANS , PATTY , Defendant    

CO-DIR OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF CLAY COUNTY

100 W MISSISSIPPI STREET

LIBERTY, MO 64068

KEMPF , DARRYL , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF COOPER COUNTY

200 MAIN STREET, ROOM 23

BOONVILLE, MO 65233

DOOR , DEBBIE , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF FRANKLIN CO

400 E LOCUST, STE 201

UNION, MO 63084

NICHOLS , ROBERT C JR , Defendant    

CO-DIR OF THE BOARD F ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF JACKSON CO

215 N LIBERTY ST

INDEPENDENCE, MO 64051

DAVIS , CHARLENE , Defendant    

CO-DIR F THE BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF JACKSON CO

215 N LIBERTY STREET

INDEPENDENCE, MO 64051

WAGNER , WES , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF JEFFERSON CO

729 MAPLE ST, ROOM 217

HILLSBORO, MO 63050

KIEFFER , SHAWN , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF KANSAS CITY

1828 WALNUT, SUITE 300

KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

MCTHOMAS , SHELLEY , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF KANSAS CITY

1828 WALNUT, SUITE 300

KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

CHRISTOPHER , KELLY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF LIVINGSTON CO

700 WEBSTER STREET, SUITE 10

CHILLICOTHE, MO 64601

GROEPPER , ANITA E , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK OF MONITEAU CO

200 E MAIN STREET, ROOM 106

CALIFORNIA, MO 65018

ERICKSON , MARY BETH , Defendant    

CO-DIR OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF PLATTE CO

2600 NW PRAIRIE VIEW ROAD

PLATTE CITY, MO 64079

FLANIGAN , WENDY M , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF PLATTE CO

2600 NW PRAIRIE VIEW ROAD

PLATTE CITY, MO 64079

CHRISMER , RICH , Defendant    

ST CHARLES CO ELECTION AUTHORI

397 TURNER BLVD

SAINT PETERS, MO 63376

JONES , MARY WHEELER , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF ST LOUIS CITY

300 N TUCKER

SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101

LINENDECKER , SCOTT , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS OF ST LOUIS CITY

300 N TUCKER

SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101

DONAHUE , JOE , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSION OF ST LOUIS COUNTY

12 SUNNEN DRIVE, STE 126

SAINT LOUIS, MO 63143

GOEKE , JOSEPH , Defendant    

CO-DIRECT OF BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSION OF ST LOUIS COUNTY

12 SUNNEN DRIVE, STE 126

SAINT LOUIS, MO 63143

REGISTER , MARVIN , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – COLE COUNTY

311 E HIGH STREET, ROOM 201

JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65101

LUCK , ELAINE , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – LINCOLN COUNTY

201 MAIN STREET

TROY, MO 63379

WILLIAMS , BARBARA , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – MCDONALD COUNTY

602 MAIN STREET

PINEVILLE, MO 64856

BAUM , KAY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – NEWTON COUNTY

101 S WOOD STREET

NEOSHO, MO 64850

BRYANT , KENNETH R , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – SALINE COUNTY

101 E ARROW, ROOM 202

MARSHALL, MO 65340

TAYLOR , SUSETTE , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – ATCHISON COUNTY

400 S WASHINGTON

ROCK PORT, MO 64482

SMITH , CONNIE , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – CRAWFORD COUNTY

203 MAIN STREET

STEELVILLE, MO 65565

STEWARD , LINDA , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – DAVIESS COUNTY

102 N MAIN STREET

GALLATIN, MO 64640

BERRY , MARY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – DEKALB COUNTY

109 N MAIN STREET

MAYSVILLE, MO 64469

REIDLINGER , CAROL , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK – GENTRY COUNTY

200 W CLAY

ALBANY, MO 64402

BASIER , KAY , Defendant    

COUNTY CLERK-STE GENEVIEBE CTY

55 S THIRD STREET

SAINTE GENEVIEVE, MO 63670

CARNAHAN , ROBIN , Defendant    

SECRETARY OF STATE

STATE OF MISSOURI

600 WEST MAIN STREET

JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65101

KOSTER , CHRIS , Defendant    

1100 SOUTH MAIN STREET

HARRISONVILLE, MO 64701

And this is what’s happened so far:

08CY-CV08262 – MARGARET DONNELLY ET AL V SANDY COLLOP ET AL

08/26/2008

Docket Entry:   Pet Filed in Circuit Ct

Docket Entry: Certificate of Service

Filing Party: RHYNE , RICHARD DALY

Docket Entry: Motion Filed

Text: MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO RESPONDENTS. KST

Filing Party: RHYNE , RICHARD DALY

Docket Entry: Summons Issued-Circuit

Text: Document ID: 08-SMCC-1941, for KOSTER, CHRIS;SUMMONS ISSUED AND DELIVERED BACK TO ATTORNEY FOR SERVICE TOGETHER WITH FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.bp

Docket Entry: Order

Text: Order Setting Preliminary Hearing for Election Contest for 9-02-2008 @ 1:00 pm by agreement. LDH

Filing Party: HARMAN , LARRY DALE

Docket Entry: Order

Text: Contestant’s Motion to Shorten Time to Respond to the First Request for Production of Documents to Respondents is granted. Respondents shall respond not later than August 29, 2008. LDH

Filing Party: HARMAN , LARRY DALE

Docket Entry:   Hearing Scheduled

Associated Events: 09/02/2008 , 13:00:00 – Hearing

Docket Entry: Summons Issued-Reg/Cert Mail

Text: Document ID: 08-SMCM-87, for COLLOP, SANDY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-88, for HARVEY, SHELLEY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-89, for CONWAY, PAT; Document ID: 08-SMCM-90, for REINHART, DAVE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-91, for EVANS, PATTY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-92, for KEMPF, DARRYL; Document ID: 08-SMCM-93, for DOOR, DEBBIE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-94, for NICHOLS, ROBERT C; Document ID: 08-SMCM-95, for DAVIS, CHARLE
NE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-96, for MCTHOMAS, SHELLEY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-97, for KIEFFER, SHAWN; Document ID: 08-SMCM-98, for WAGNER, WES; Document ID: 08-SMCM-99, for CHRISTOPHER, KELLY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-100, for GROEPPER, ANITA E; Document ID: 08-SMCM-101, for ERICKSON, MARY BETH; Document ID: 08-SMCM-102, for FLANIGAN, WENDY M; Document ID: 08-SMCM-103, for CHRISMER, RICH; Document ID: 08-SMCM-104, for JONES, MARY WHEELER; Document ID: 08-SMCM-105, for LINENDECKER, SCOTT; Document ID: 08-SMCM-106, for DONAHUE, JOE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-107, for GOEKE, JOSEPH; Document ID: 08-SMCM-108, for REGISTER, MARVIN; Document ID: 08-SMCM-109, for LUCK, ELAINE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-110, for WILLIAMS, BARBARA; Document ID: 08-SMCM-111, for BAUM, KAY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-112, for BRYANT, KENNETH R; Document ID: 08-SMCM-113, for TAYLOR, SUSETTE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-114, for SMITH, CONNIE; Document ID: 08-SMCM-115, for STEWARD, LINDA; Document ID: 08-SMCM-116, for BERRY, MARY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-117, for REIDLINGER, CAROL; Document ID: 08-SMCM-118, for BASIER, KAY; Document ID: 08-SMCM-119, for CARNAHAN, ROBIN; SUMMONS ISSUED AND MAILED BY CERTIFIED MAILED TOGETHER WITH FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION DOCUMENTS.bp

We’ll know more on Tuesday, September 2nd after the hearing. This lawsuit is separate from the actual recount under the aegis of the Secretary of State.  

In 1940, following an era of machine politics in St. Louis and Kansas City that out-Tammanied Tammany Hall, Missourians amended the state constitution to change the way judges were selected to fill vacancies on the benches of the Missouri Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the circuit courts of Jackson County and the municipality of St. Louis.

The amendment was placed on the ballot and enacted in response to the hijacking of the justice system by the powerful political machines of Tom Pendergast in Kansas City and Edward Butler of St. Louis.  Under the Bosses, justice resided in their pockets, and nowhere else.

The amendment offered was dubbed “The Missouri Plan” and under it, judicial elections were replaced with a judicial commission comprised of judges, lawyers and citizens which reviews and interviews applicants for vacancies on the bench and winnows the field to three choices.  The Governor then has sixty days to select the new judge from those three candidates.  If he fails to do so in the allotted time, the decision reverts to the recommending body.  At the first General Election following one year on the bench, the new judge faces the voters who decide whether the appointed jurist shall be retained.

In balloting to determine whether judges be retained, the state Bar Association issues ratings for the judges before the election, and the ratings and recommendations are made available to the public.  It is in the best interest of attorneys and  citizens alike for judges to be fair-minded and non-partisan, so the ratings are extremely apolitical.

This system has worked very well for us for 67 years, and has served to keep the state courts as apolitical as possible, while efficiently and promptly filling vacancies on the bench with qualified jurists.  In the years since 1940, it has been expanded to include all circuit court judges in Clay, Platte and St. Louis Counties.

One of the most elegant features of the plan is the way it defangs the money monster.  Success in partisan elections depends on money, on the financial contributors of donors (a very iffy proposition when we are talking about the very concept of Justice).

The Missouri plan works so well that in the intervening decades, 36 additional states have adopted the plan in whole or in part.

Unfortunately, last summer the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White (famously “blue slipped” by Ashcroft and denied a hearing after Clinton nominated him to the Federal bench) created a vacancy on the Missouri Supreme Court and  gave little Matty Blunt the opportunity to stamp his wittle feet and pitch a hissy-fit and try to break another part of the state  government that actually works.  Injecting politics back into the process appeals to him, too, of course.  And as a bonus, he got to throw a tantrum because he doesn’t think the commissions  pay him proper homage as the elected executive of the state.

Don’t be fooled, his hissy-fit is pure political theater.  Blunt is attacking the nonpartisan judge selection because he wants total control of the appointments.  But there is a more insidious undertone to it, too.  He’s firing a warning shot across the bow of the judges not covered by the non-partisan system who do have to stand for election.  It makes the Governors position crystal clear – if he doesn’t like their decisions, he can orchestrate a deluge of money for opposing candidates.  It has already happened.

In June, a thinly-veiled BluntCo initiative rolled out to attack the judicial selection process.  Flying under the flag of something called “The Adam Smith Foundation” the minions of the governor went on the attack, while simultaneously playing the victim card….neat trick, that.

June 26th, 2007

 

Adam Smith Foundation Launched

  (Jefferson City) – The Adam Smith Foundation is proud to announce its official launch as an organization committed to promoting conservative principals [sic] and individual liberties for Missouri. Our Foundation seeks to provide Missourian’s with information they need to hold their State and local elected officials as well as activist judges directly accountable for their actions.

“There are countless leftist political groups in Missouri, but only a handful of conservative organizations. We strive to fill an important void by holding politicians in Jefferson City accountable.” said John Elliott, organization President. “Big spenders in state and local governments have forgotten that tax dollars belong to the citizens, and we will promote ways to reduce the size of government.”

Blunt pursues this agenda at the peril of further splitting the Missouri GOP.  When State Senator Kris Koster left the Republican party in August, he cited the Blunt Administrations attack on the judiciary was one of his key reasons for switching parties.  Koster, a former prosecuting attorney for Cass County summed up the Blunt administration very well when he said “I can’t think of another administration in our lifetime that has such disregard and such contempt for the third branch of government.”

Yesterday the Missouri Supreme Court followed up its earlier campaign finance ruling with an opinion stating that campaign contributions over the limit must be returned to contributors. Mostly.

The Kansas City Star published the following summary in today’s edition [tiny URL]:

The Missouri Supreme Court on Monday ordered candidates to refund any oversized campaign contributions they accepted this year unless they could show such refunds would create a serious hardship.

The court ordered the Missouri Ethics Commission to give any candidate a hearing to show why refunding the money would be overly burdensome….

Jack Cardetti, Communications Director for the Missouri Democratic Party, issued the following press release:

Statement on Campaign Finance Ruling
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, August Date, 2007

“Today’s ruling is a victory for those Missourians who believe elections should be fought on a level playing field,” said Jack Cardetti, Missouri Democratic Party spokesman. “The Supreme Court and the Ethics Commission agree that this ruling should be applied retroactively. In the one instance where the court had all the available information, it determined that James Trout did not have a hardship and therefore retroactivity must apply. Therefore the Ethics Commission can now order refunds of contributions in excess of the limits unless individual candidates can prove that enforcing retroactivity ‘would be a hardship.’

“It will be hard for Matt Blunt to argue that returning $350,000 from the Swift Boat benefactors creates a hardship,” Cardetti said.

“Candidates who have not yet decided to challenge an opponent, will now be able to without the fear that they must play by a completely separate set of rules,” Cardetti said. “Most importantly, today’s ruling is a step in the right direction for anyone who wants to loosen the grip of special interest money on Missouri politics.”

# # #

The Supreme Court opinion in James Trout, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents/Cross-Appellants. SC88476 starts [The document states: “This slip opinion is subject to modification until the Court has ruled on the parties’ motions for rehearing, if any, and will become final only after the Court issues its mandate.”]:

The campaign finance reform bill, H.B. 1900, became effective on January 1, 2007. James Trout filed suit challenging its constitutionality the following day. In its opinion of July 19, 2007, the Court found the removal of campaign limits could not be severed from the blackout provision that the trial court found to be unconstitutional. The Court invited interested parties to submit letter briefs as to the appropriate remedy, particularly whether the Court’s decision should be applied prospectively only…

The court tried to find a solution to the unfair advantage a candidate would have in garnering large contributions before the limits were reimposed over another candidate who had not yet started raising money or declared their candidacy after the limits were reimposed.

The law concerning whether a decision is given retroactive or prospective application is simple in theory. “An unconstitutional statute is no law and confers no rights. This is true from the date of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.” State ex rel. Miller v. O’Malley, 117 S.W.2d 319, 324 (Mo. banc 1938); see also Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886).

That is, in general, the law is void from the day it was enacted, not the day the court found it invalid. If this does not create a hardship.

Moreover, no candidate’s campaign can be considered in a vacuum. It could create, rather than alleviate, hardship and injustice if only certain candidates who enjoyed periods of unlimited fundraising are granted prospective application of the Court’s July 19, 2007, opinion. Those candidates who have not yet or have only recently entered the field might have great difficulty matching the sums their opponents raised if they were subjected to campaign contribution limits that had not been applied to their opponents. It is well accepted that “virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. . . . The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19 (1976). Such an uneven playing field raises obvious equitable and constitutional concerns. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 802 (1983); see also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 564 (1964) (“[f]ree and honest elections are the very foundation of our republican form of government”). In balancing these variables in an election case such as this, one must endeavor to avoid doing so in a way that creates a political advantage for one candidate over another by virtue of the decision.

In the case of this particular statute, the balancing of hardships and the determination whether retroactive application would work an injustice is further complicated by the fact that this Court’s July 19 decision does not preclude the legislature from again enacting legislation lifting limits on campaign contributions. The Court invalidated the statute at issue in this case solely because it could not be severed from the blackout period the trial court found to be unconstitutional, rather than because a bill lifting contribution limits is inherently unconstitutional. Nothing in the July 19 decision precludes the legislature from enacting, in general or special session, new legislation that constitutionally lifts campaign limits entirely. Alternatively, it could enact new legislation that effectively reaffirms that campaign limits are in place because of the lack of a blackout period. Indeed, it would not be precluded from adopting more novel approaches in an effort to even the playing field, such as by enacting much higher campaign contribution limits or by enacting legislation that would impose contribution limits on a candidate only at such time, if any, as that candidate had reached the same level of contributions over permissible contribution limits as had other candidates for that office prior to this Court’s July 19 ruling. The Missouri Constitution commits any such decision to the discretion of the legislative branch.

The court stated that the General Assembly can do away with campaign contribution limits, but because the “blackout” provision [forbidding contributions while the General Assembly was in session] in the law in question could not be separated from the lifting of those limits, the court struck down the entire mess.

The opinion places the process for determining “hardship” squarely in the lap of the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Finally, and of key importance, is the fact that it is not this Court, but the Missouri Ethics Commission, that must initiate any enforcement action to require disgorgement of campaign contributions as to those not before this Court….If a candidate believes that retroactive application of the decision would be a hardship in his or her particular circumstances because he or she acted in good faith and in reasonable reliance and retroactive application would work an injustice, that candidate must develop with specificity what those circumstances are to the Missouri Ethics Commission. In considering these factors in particular cases or classes of cases, however, the Commission must ensure that it not become a vehicle for creating an uneven playing field for a particular office; to do so would itself create an undue hardship for and injustice to the other candidates for that office.

The Kansas City Star article continues:

….Nixon’s office said the decision “clears the way for the ethics commission to order refunds of contributions in excess of limits.”

Bob Connor, the Ethics Commission’s executive director, said the agency’s attorneys would present their recommendations and analysis to the full commission on Thursday. The commission might adopt policies to comply with the court ruling, Connor said.

But Connor said the ruling appears to require the agency to conduct a case-by-case review of every candidate for office. The agency will have to weigh each hardship that is claimed on all the other candidates in a race, he said.

“If X says, ‘I have a hardship for these reasons,’?” the commission will have to consider it, Connor said. The commission will then determine how that affects every person in the same race….

There will be plenty of campaign finance fodder for us to wade through as the implementation of this ruling takes place. As always, follow the money.

If you’re going to appoint someone to fill a vacancy on the Missouri Supreme Court, why ask that question?

It appears that Missouri Governor Matt “baby” Blunt probably hasn’t read the U.S. Constitution, or the Missouri Constitution, for that matter. When it comes to the Missouri Supreme Court his “activist” agenda trumps everything else.

The United States Constitution states in Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article I:

Section 5. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on account of his religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his person or estate; but this section shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

The Appellate Judicial Commission got it right. From the Appellate Judicial Commission questionnaire:

14. Affiliations and activities outside of legal profession:

“baby” Blunt got it wrong. From Blunt’s questionnaire:

26. What groups or non work-related organizations have you joined, including non-profits, community groups, religious, secular or other organizations? Please list dates of service and offices held and describe each organization’s mission and purpose.

So, if you’re not supposed to use the information, why ask the question? Just curious.

Further, is there any question that the republicans’ 2008 campaign wedge issue is immigration?

You’ve got to love the answers to these questions asked by Blunt:

37. Have you or your family ever employed an illegal immigrant or a company that employed illegal immigrants?

38. Have you or your family ever worked for companies or been affiliated with
organizations (non-profit or other) that employ or provide services to illegal
immigrants?

Judge Nannnette Baker responded:

37. My immediate family includes me and my husband. I am without sufficient information to answer this question regarding extended family members. Based on the information family members have supplied me, they indicate they have not employed illegal immigrants.

38. To the best of my knowledge, no organization has provided information to me that indicates that they employed or provided services to illegal immigrants. However, I believe that my employer, the State of Missouri may provide services to illegal immigrants.

Judge Patricia Breckenridge responded:

37. No.

38. I understand that my employer, the State of Missouri, has employed a company or companies that employed illegal immigrants. I am told that Mattie Rhodes may provide services to illegal immigrants.”

Judge Ronald Holliger responded:

37. Not to my knowledge.

38. I work for the State of Missouri which I believe may have employed and provided services to illegal immigrants. In addition the Jackson County Juvenile Court may have provided services although I am not aware of any specific instance. You have not defined the term “family”. My brother has been president of a company of thousands of employees. He advises me that his company has never knowingly employed illegal immigrants. My sister is a Registered Nurse in a pediatric office and advises me that she feels certain that some patients and families may not have had legal status. My other sister is a retired U.S. Marshall. What she provided illegal immigrants I do not believe you mean by the word “service”. Otherwise the answer is no to my best knowledge and belief.

Can “baby” Blunt and his administration have a more transparent agenda? Go. Read the entire questionnaire and responses.

It’s become quite clear that one of the republican wedge issues for the 2008 election in Missouri will be an assault on an independent judiciary spun as a crises concerning “activist judges”.

Governor Matt “baby” Blunt, through his office, and the fringe political right in Missouri have recently made it clear that they are very unhappy with the ideology of the three finalists for the recent Missouri Supreme Court vacancy.
 
It has widely been reported in the media over a period of years that Missouri’s non-partisan court plan has served as a model for a number of other states.

The Missouri judiciary has placed the astonishing correspondence between the governor’s office and the  Appellate Judicial Commission (which selected and forwarded the the finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy to the governor) on its website.

In a letter dated July 26, 2007 which was addressed to Chief Justice Laura Stith the Governor’s Chief Counsel, Henry Herschel, made a request for all of the information the Appellate Judicial Commission had on all of the applicants for the vacancy.

On that same date a letter of reply was addressed to Herschel by the Secretary of the commission, Richard McLeod. In this letter McLeod reviews the commission’s processes and states, “Supreme Court Rule 10 governs the commission. Rules 10.28 and 10.29 provide that no publicity shall be given names of persons under consideration and that all matters discussed at any meeting of the commission shall be kept confidential. The commission has furnished the governor with the complete application of the three nominees, which is all the information that it is able to provide.”

In a July 30, 2007 letter addressed to Chief Justice Stith from Ed Martin the governor’s chief of staff wields a highly partisan bat:

…please respond to this office regarding the appellate commission and its work. The fact is that you are chair of the Appellate Commission for a reason. The other members serve certain roles: some elected by the Bar and others appointed by a governor. It seems to me that you as chaor stand apart from these two selection methods. For you to hand off the leadership and voice of the Appellate Commission invites unnecessary politicization. (E.g. “Why is the Holden appointee speaking for the entire commission?” Or “why should an elected bar member from one part of the state speak for the Appellate Commission?”). The recent letter from our general counsel to you was passed along to one of the lay appointees of Governor Holden for response. This is inappropriate.

“Unnecessary politicization?” It’s really true, “baby” Blunt and his staff are severly irony challenged.

On July 31, 2007 Chief Justice Stith replied to Ed Martin:

I can only interpret your rather extraordinary letter of yesterday, addressed as it was to me rather than the Commission, as a desire to give me personal advice as to how you think the Commission should function….

….as I have emphasized to you and others in the past, the Appelate Judicial Commission exists seperate and apart from the Supreme Court of Missouri, and it is to the Commission that requests, should any be necessary or appropriate, should be directed. In this regard, allow me to correct a further misunderstanding evident from your letter. Mr McLeod is a lawyer-member of the Commission, elected by the members of the Missouri bar in the Western District of Missouri to a six-year term. The Commission selected Mr. Mcleod to serve as its Secretary. As is appropriate to that role, Mr. McLeod will continue to respond on behalf of the Commission to requests to it for information or documents.

Go. Read all of the letters. Matt “baby” Blunt and his administration really are the gang that can’t think straight. What an embarassment to the state and people of Missouri.