Each election, the lawyers association makes recommendations on whether voters should retain the appellate judges -- and circuit and associate circuit judges in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas -- who were appointed to the bench by the governor.

Of the 42 judges up for retention elections this year, the Missouri Bar panels recommended that only one should be voted off the bench. He is St. Louis County Circuit Judge Dale Hood.

The review process was expanded this year to include not only lawyer surveys but also juror surveys and, in the case of appellate judges, samples of their written rulings. Committees of six lawyers and six non-lawyers then reviewed the survey results and made the retention recommendations.
----

News release

"Before any Missourians cast a ballot in the judicial retention elections, we urge them to read the performance evaluations," said Missouri Bar President Charlie Harris Jr. "The evaluations are unbiased, extensive, and represent the conscientious work of lawyers and nonlawyers."

Although The Missouri Bar has previously conducted judicial evaluation surveys, this year's evaluation process is greatly expanded. At The Missouri Bar's request, the Supreme Court of Missouri earlier this year issued an order that directed The Missouri Bar to create an "Appellate Judicial Evaluation Committee" and "Circuit Judicial Evaluation Committees" for St. Louis City, St. Louis County and for Jackson, Clay and Platte Counties.

The Appellate Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee consists of two members of The Missouri Bar from each district of the court of appeals and two citizens, not members of the bar, from each district. Each of the other committees consists of six lawyers and six nonlawyers from the judicial circuit.

All committee members were appointed by the Board of Governors of The Missouri Bar. The Board considered non-partisan, merit factors - such as expertise, experience and knowledge - ensuring the committee membership was reflective of the diversity of each committee's constituencies.

"The non-lawyers played an equal role in the development of committee recommendations," said Dale Doerhoff, who was appointed by the Bar's Board of Governors to coordinate the work of all the committees. "Each committee evaluated judges based on responses to the lawyer survey, the juror survey (for trial judges) - and written opinions and orders of the judges.

Jurors only evaluated the judge who had presided over the trial for which they had served. Jurors were asked a series of 10 questions about the judge's courtroom conduct. For instance: Did the judge clearly explain the legal issues of the case? Did the judge appear to be free from bias or prejudice? Did the judge appear to be well-prepared for the case?

The lawyers' evaluations focused on key traits that judges need to render justice effectively and fairly. Trial judges - circuit and associate circuit level judges - were rated in 16 areas. These included a wide range of observable skills and traits, such as treating participants with respect; displaying competence in the law; giving reasons for rulings; and maintaining control over the proceedings.

Appellate level judges were rated on a set of different criteria. Appellate judges decide cases that are appealed because of possible legal errors - either procedural or through misinterpretations of the law. These judges were rated on areas such as whether their opinions were clearly written; whether they adequately explained the basis of the court's decision, and whether they issued opinions in a timely manner.

For both appellate and trial judges, lawyers' evaluations were converted into a numerical score between 1 and 5, with 1 being the poorest and 5 being the best.

No attempt is made to determine whether a judge may be considered liberal or conservative - and this is intentional. Lawyers rated judges on being able to make decisions without regard to criticism; jurors were asked whether the judge was free from bias or prejudice.

"Fair and impartial courts require judges who make decisions based on the law and evidence - and that is central to this evaluation," said Missouri Bar President Harris. "Anything else is conjecture and would inject partisan politics into our state court system."

Missouri has two systems for selecting and electing state judges. Since 1940, the state has used a merit system, known as the Non-Partisan Court Plan, for electing judges of the Supreme Court, judges of the Missouri Court of Appeals, and trial judges in St. Louis City and County, and Jackson, Clay and Platte Counties. In other parts of the state trial-level judges run in partisan races, usually facing other candidates from the opposing political party.

Before becoming a state judge, all Non-Partisan judges are screened by a commission whose members include lawyers, judges and nonlawyers. The commission selects the three best candidates for each judicial opening then forwards their names to the governor, who chooses one candidate to fill the position.

After their first year on the bench and again at the end of each term, Non-Partisan judges must run in retention elections. Instead of facing other candidates, they run based on their record on the bench.

In retention elections, the ballot reads, "Shall Judge X be retrained?" To retain their office, each merit-selected judge in Missouri must receive the approval of at least 50 percent of those who cast ballots in their retention election.