CHEYENNE — It is heartening to see so many people standing up for Wyoming’s method of selecting an independent judiciary.
Wyoming voters adopted the so-called Missouri Plan in 1972 through a constitutional amendment.
And it would take another constitutional amendment to change it back to the old political system which made justices get their seats through elections.
In the last legislative session such an amendment was offered but never progressed.
The movement was to be expected, however, since the Trump White House is engaged in a war against the nation’s judges.
This is just another national MAGA issue that filtered down to the state level and the Freedom Caucus where it has been embraced regardless of the lack of any problems with Wyoming’s system.
And the Freedom Caucus, which now has majority control in the House and half the Senate, has put the judiciary onto its state target.
It doesn't really fit though in keeping with the Freedom Caucus’ basic aims of hard line fiscal conservatism with a heavy religious slant.
Nevertheless, I would expect to see the judicial bill in the budget session next winter as the caucus continues to push this state back to the 1970s or earlier
When Wyoming votes adopted the Missouri Plan in 1972, I think one goal was to elevate the job of judge to a higher plane.
One aim was to get the system out of what sometimes could be a messy, ugly political brawl which is not what you want in choosing a judge.
With the Missouri system, lawyers who wanted to be judges did not need to start raising money for a political campaign that would include rallies and door to door visits and the like.
All they they had to do was apply to the new judicial selection committee, comprised of lawyers and non lawyers.
The commission then selected three finalists and sent the list to the governor. The governor chooses the new judge from that list.
It was at this stage in the process that the selection of the judge remains linked to politics.
Governor are politicians.
Sometimes they did not like the choices of the judicial nominating commission.
That happened when Democratic Gov. Ed Herschler sent back to the commission its list of three nominees.
A respected attorney, Herschler, who was elected in 1974, may have been opposed to the whole idea of the new plan.
At any rate, he rejected the list more than once.
Rodney Guthrie, the chief justice of the Wyoming Supreme Court during those years, told me later that he was afraid he was going to have to make the judicial appointment himself. That was what the law required if the governor did not act within a certain time period.
Herschler did finally make an appointment. After that I never heard of any judicial nomination that was rejected by a Wyoming governor.
That doesn’t mean their weren’t any.
Instead of having to run for election or re-election, the judges “stood” for election. Which meant they could not campaign but they were on the ballot for voters to decide in or out.
It was a helpless position for the judges if they were under attack by the lawyers or some other group
That was what happened to Supreme Court Justice Walter Urbigkit who finally had special permission from the high court to run a campaign to defend himself against an onslaught from the lawyers. It didn’t work. He lost his seat
The weakness of the program is the governor’s role which keeps it in the political arena. sort of.
Although flawed, this is the best system there is for maintaining an independent judiciary. We need to keep it.
Contact Joan Barron at 307-632-2534 or jmbarron@bresnan.net
