Judicial races present challenge for voters
Candidates remain guarded about opinions.

Don’t expect to hear the personal views of candidates running for judge.

Chances are voters will hear the same fundamental promises to be fair and impartial and to follow the law from all candidates vying for seats in the 13th Judicial Circuit.

That’s because running for a judicial seat is not quite like running for a political office. Candidates are elected by a majority vote, but once on the bench, a judge is responsible to the law, not to the people who put him or her there.

"A judge is not sitting on the bench to represent a constituency of people," said St. Louis attorney Doug Copeland, president of the Missouri Bar Association. "A judge is there to be true to the law, to be unbiased and impartial.

"Quite often what a judge does might not be popular with the majority, but constitutionally and legislatively, there are rights that belong to everyone, even members of the minority," he said.

On Aug. 8, seven candidates will meet in the primaries for a chance to fill two associate circuit judgeships in the 13th Judicial Circuit, which includes Boone and Callaway counties.

Campaigning for judge involves convincing voters to elect someone based on experience and education as well as integrity and sincerity. Expressing views about particular laws or taking a stand on issues such as punishment for criminals or the death sentence is out of the question unless a candidate is willing to withdraw from hearing a case about that issue.

"A judge is not there to express his or her own personal opinions about whether this is a good law or a bad law," Copeland said. "It is up to the legislature to change the law or up to the people to change the constitution."

In most of the 114 counties in Missouri, candidates for associate circuit judge and circuit judge run on partisan ballots. But in Clay, Jackson, Platte and St. Louis counties and the city of St. Louis, as well as for the Court of Appeals and the Missouri Supreme Court, judges are nominated and appointed under a nonpartisan court plan and occasionally appear before voters in retention elections.

Candidates for judicial office "are very different from those running for legislative or executive branch offices," wrote Missouri Chief Justice Michael Wolff in his "Law Matters" column in May. "When an issue comes before a court, do you want your case to be decided by someone who already has announced his or her position on the matter during a campaign? Or would you rather have the opportunity to present the facts, issues and law as you see them before the judge makes a decision?"

The Code of Judicial Conduct formerly prohibited judicial candidates from voicing their positions on issues they might decide in the courtroom. But in 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the prohibition violated the candidates’ right to free speech. The rules in Missouri were then amended, but candidates who do speak out might have to remove themselves from hearing a case involving that issue in the future.

Wolff likened serving as judge to citizens who are summoned for jury duty.

"They are often asked whether they can set aside their own personal views and follow the law," he wrote. "If they say they cannot do so, then they are not selected for jury service. We should be able to expect the same of judges."

Copeland said it could be confusing for voters to differentiate judicial candidates from each other because all are attorneys and their credentials often sound similar to the average person. He encouraged voters to assess each candidate’s character.

"Is this a person of the law? Are they sharp and smart?" Copeland said. "Can they be impartial? Are they someone of high integrity? Are they diligent and honest? Those are the things that should be going through voters’ heads."

Wolff wrote that a candidate for judge should only make two promises: "One, they will decide cases fairly and impartially, free of political influence and intimidation; and two, regardless of their own personal view or the views of the voters, they will follow the law. This includes the Constitution of the United States and the state of Missouri, and the statutes, enacted either federal or state."

Copeland said making sure judges will be impartial is the backbone of the American justice system, "so we can maintain the reality of having unbiased judges and also the perception of having unbiased judges. Our system suffers if there is a problem or the perception of a problem."

---

Reach Sara Agnew at (573) 815-1717 or sagnew@tribmail.com.

---