In an opinion handed down today, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to order candidates and elected officials to return money raised during the brief time the state was without contribution limits.

In a 4-2 per curiam opinion that cannot be attributed to any particular judge, the Court held that its July 19, 2007, decision is fully retroactive as to James Trout and is fully prospective to all candidates and campaigns whose campaigns were concluded by July 19. The Court further held that, as to all other nonparty candidates whose campaigns were not concluded by July 19, the Court cannot make any bright-line rule of prospective or retrospective application on the record before the Court and, therefore, leaves such matters to the Missouri Ethics Commission, which is responsible for any enforcement action to require disgorgement of campaign contributions.

Click here to read the full opinion.

In Missouri, the governor selects a judge to serve on the Supreme Court from a panel of three candidates submitted by the Appellate Judicial Commission. The Appellate Judicial Commission is made up of the presiding chief justice, three lawyers chosen by the Missouri Bar and three people appointed by governors.

Before they make the cut, the Supreme Court candidates are asked to complete a questionnaire. Governor Matt Blunt’s office has posted their responses on the Governor’s website. Click here to read them.

From the Governor’s office…

Gov. Matt Blunt’s office today raised questions about information in the Supreme Court Candidates’ applications that was withheld by the Appellate Judicial Commission. The commission asserted Friday the applications they delivered to the governor’s office were complete, but a review found that documents were missing or removed from the original applications submitted by the candidates.

The missing documents include one candidate’s statement of judicial philosophy, another candidate’s list of cases as required by the commission and background check authorizations for all three candidates.

“Upon review, we found that the three Supreme Court candidate’s application materials you sent to our office last Thursday were incomplete,” said the Governor’s Chief Counsel Henry Herschel in a letter to Judge Laura Denvir Stith, the chair of the Judicial Appellate Commission.

After initial research that included a request from each candidate for copies of their original application, it became clear that the commission removed or withheld pertinent information from the applications provided to the governor.

Missing documents include:

• one candidate’s list of cases tried
• one candidate’s statements of judicial philosophy
• background check authorization forms for all three candidates

The commission asked each applicant twenty-five questions including a request for a list of ten legal cases they have tried. The materials sent to the governor’s office did not include an answer to this question by one of the candidates. After contacting the candidate, the governor’s office was provided with a two page addendum that had been provided to the commission but was missing from the application. This addendum listed only four cases that had been tried by this candidate.

Additionally, one of the candidate’s statements of judicial philosophy, provided to the Appellate Commission as an addendum, was omitted. This was particularly enlightening as it addressed head on the question of judicial philosophy by one of the candidates.

The applications from the commission also failed to include the signed permission waivers for background checks and the background checks themselves. It is not known whether the commission ran background checks on the candidates or why copies of the authorization forms were removed from the application files.

The governor’s office previously requested all available information from the Appellate Judicial Commission and has expanded that request to include information about why relevant material was excluded from the provided materials. The request is part of the exhaustive interview process in motion to help Gov. Matt Blunt determine who of the three candidates will serve as Missouri’s next Supreme Court Judge.

In Missouri, the governor does not appoint a judge to the Supreme Court from citizens at large. Instead an Appellate Judicial Commission, made up of the presiding chief justice, three lawyers chosen by the Missouri Bar and three people appointed by governors, selects a panel of three candidates. Gov. Blunt has appointed only one of the three commissioners, and the others were appointed by former Gov. Bob Holden. The governor has 60 days to appoint one of the three nominated candidates to the Supreme Court.

Governor Matt Blunt will soon choose from among three members of the Missouri Court of Appeals for his first appointment to the Missouri Supreme Court.

The Appellate Judicial Commission selected the finalists from among 30 applicants to replace Ronnie White, who recently resigned from the court to go into private practice.

The finalists are Judge Nannette Baker of the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District and Western District Judges Patricia Breckenridge and Ronald Holliger. Baker and Holliger were both appointed to their current posts by Democratic governors while Breckenridge is a Republican appointee.

White was the first and only black member of the state high court. Baker is the lone African-American among the finalists. Blunt has 60 days to make his selection. If he fails to do so, the commission will make the appointment.

UPDATE: Blunt’s office today requested information on all the applicants. Here’s the press release…

Gov. Matt Blunt’s office today requested any transcripts, notes and information gathered by the Appellate Judicial Commission as they narrowed a field of 30 applicants to a three member panel. The request is part of the exhaustive process in motion to learn more about and evaluate the legal work of the three names submitted to the governor as candidates for the Missouri Supreme Court.

“As you might imagine, details from these interviews will be very helpful to our office as we begin our own exhaustive interview process,” wrote Henry Herschel, General Counsel for the governor in a letter. “I am sure you will agree that any interview transcripts, audio recordings, notes, format, length and any additional information from these interviews will be helpful to us as the governor prepares to make this important decision.”

The office has requested:

• Any transcripts and/or audio recordings and notes from every interview with every applicant
• Information on meeting and interview times, locations and length
• Details of notice provided regarding all commission meetings and interviews
• Insight into the questions presented to the applicants including whether they were standardized and what questions were included or given priority

The governor’s office acknowledged receipt of the applications submitted by the three candidates, but noted it did not include this information. Once the governor’s office receives the documents, they will compile this information with all available records, research and communications to aide the governor in making his final decision.

In Missouri, the governor does not appoint a judge to the Supreme Court from citizens at large. Instead an Appellate Judicial Commission, made up of the presiding chief justice, three lawyers chosen by the Missouri Bar and three people appointed by governors, selects a panel of three candidates. Gov. Blunt has appointed only one of the three commissioners, and the others were appointed by former Gov. Bob Holden. The governor has 60 days to evaluate the three nominated candidates to the Supreme Court.

The Appellate Judicial Commission now is accepting applications for the position of judge of the Supreme Court of Missouri, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Judge Ronnie L. White, effective July 6. Judge White has served more than 11 years on the Court.

Applications may be filed until 5 p.m. Monday, July 9, 2007, but earlier submission is encouraged. The commission will meet Tuesday and Wednesday, July 24 and 25, 2007, in Columbia, Mo., to conduct interviews and to select a panel of three applicants for submission to the governor.

Interested persons may download an application and accompanying rules and instructions from the Missouri Courts website listed under Quicklinks, “Judicial Vacancies.” All applicants, including those who have applied previously for other vacancies, must file a new application.

The Missouri Constitution requires that a judge of the Supreme Court be at least 30 years old, licensed to practice law in Missouri, a United States citizen for at least 15 years and a qualified Missouri voter for at least nine years next preceding selection.

Correction: Okay, not really. Despite Governor Blunt’s assertions in his statement, the Supreme Court’s ruling did not extend to teachers the right to strike, but rather just the right to collectively bargain.

FROM THE RULING: “Article I, section 29’s guarantee that employees have ‘the right to bargain collectively’ is clear and means what it says. Agreements that the school district made with employee groups are to be afforded the same legal respect as contracts made between the district and individuals, although public employees – unlike their private-sector counterparts – are not permitted to strike.

As long as the duration and terms of such agreements comply with the limits provided by law for school districts to bind themselves, and are consistent with other statutes such as the teacher tenure act, the agreements are enforceable as any other contractual obligations undertaken by the district.”

---

By a 5-2 vote yesterday, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned a 60-year ban on the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

Throwing yet another monkey wrench in the state’s half-baked idea of taking over St. Louis Public Schools, this ruling now means that teachers, as well as other public employees, once again have the right to strike, if need be, to bring their employers to the bargaining table.

“This is yet another example of judicial activism, where a court’s action oversteps the bounds of prudent Constitutional interpretation,” said Gov. Matt Blunt in response to Tuesday’s ruling.

“This reckless decision could force cities and school districts to raise taxes and subject Missourians to the threat of strikes by critical public sector employees.”

“Public sector employees are different than all other employees, and taxpayers should not be bound by collective bargaining agreements,” said Blunt.

Obviously, the Supreme Court disagreed.

The state Constitution clearly affords collective-bargaining rights to employees. Past courts have interpreted that guarantee as not extending to public employees.

According to the Kansas City Star, in Tuesday’s decision, written by Chief Justice Michael A. Wolff, the court found that the constitutional guarantee is “clear and means what it says.”