Missouri voters concerned about future of national judiciary

Daily Record and the Kansas City Daily News-Press, Oct 20, 2008 by Allison Retka

Even with the floundering economy heavy on the minds of voters, a recent poll by the Federalist Society indicates Missourians are still concerned about the future of the national judiciary.

In a survey of 500 likely voters in the state, 78 percent of residents said a president's judicial nominations are among their top 10 issues as they head to the polls. Eleven percent said it was the most important issue.

The Washington, D.C.-based Federalist Society touted the survey as proof that Missourians have judges on the brain and don't want them straying too far from the law as they make their decisions.

"They are concerned about a process of judicial review that moves ... so far as to veto the will of the people," said Bill Eckhardt, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

He cited the umpire analogy of judicial review and said Missouri voters want judges who "call balls and strikes and not make up the rules."

Eckhardt has been identified as a supporter and advisor to Better Courts for Missouri, a group critical of Missouri's method of selecting judges.

The same poll, conducted by phone earlier this month, indicated a majority of Missourians hold a favorable opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. But they admit relative ignorance about the makeup of the court.

Only 33 percent of respondents correctly named the number of justices on the high court - nine. When asked to name any of the justices, 7 percent listed former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The poll did not ask voters any questions about the Missouri judiciary. But Eckhardt said many of the views expressed in the survey can apply to voters' attitudes about the statewide legal system.

"The angst about inappropriate behavior by courts goes across the board," he said, citing expanded venue rules and what he termed "less deference to the Legislature and to precedent."

J. Dale Youngs, a partner at Husch Blackwell Sanders, leads the Missouri Institute for Justice, a group that defends the state's Nonpartisan Court Plan.

After reviewing the results of the Federalist Society poll, Youngs said some of the questions posted to voters presented false choices.

One question asked voters if they would prefer a president who appointed judges who believe their role "is solely to evaluate whether a law or lower court ruling is in line with the U.S. Constitution."

A majority of the respondents agreed with that statement, and only 23 percent sided with the other option: Judges who "believe their role ... is instead to allow for new or evolving meanings of the law over time."

Youngs said the options were misleading, because in practice, judges do more than decide whether laws are constitutional or not.

"Anybody who believes that Supreme Court or federal court judges should solely evaluate whether the law is in line with the Constitution doesn't understand the job of a judge," he said.

Youngs said the poll's figures about voters' relative ignorance of the U.S. Supreme Court indicate lawyers aren't doing enough to educate the public about the judiciary.

"If you ask those same 500 people who won American Idol last year, a bunch of them might be able to tell you who won that," he said.