Missouri Republican lawmakers are advancing efforts to replace the state’s longstanding judicial selection system, known as the Missouri Plan, following a series of recent legal conflicts involving the state Supreme Court and congressional redistricting. The push, led by figures including U.S. Rep. Jason Smith and State Rep. Cathy Jo Loy, seeks to shift power over judicial appointments from a nonpartisan commission to the governor and state Senate, marking a significant departure from a model adopted by voters in 1940 to insulate courts from political influence.
What the Right Is Saying
Republican lawmakers and activists argue that the current commission-based system gives excessive power to legal elites and lacks democratic accountability. U.S. Rep. Jason Smith has called for Missouri to switch to electing its Supreme Court judges, while Republican Party executive director Miles Ross stated on X that “The Missouri Plan is done.” State Rep. Cathy Jo Loy, who has introduced legislation to replace the plan in each of the past two sessions, argues for a system where the governor nominates judges subject to Senate confirmation, similar to the federal process.
The recent conflict over congressional maps has intensified this view. After the Missouri Supreme Court ordered the restoration of the old map pending a voter referendum, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins directed officials to use the new map, citing a conflicting federal ruling. This led to a contempt finding against Hoskins. Fourteen Republican lawmakers threatened to impeach “responsible members of this Court” for “willful neglect of duty, incompetency and misconduct.” Loy acknowledged that while her opposition predates these clashes, the recent defeats in court could provide “more appetite” for change among senators who share her view.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive critics and defenders of the current system argue that the Missouri Plan has successfully depoliticized the judiciary for nearly nine decades. The system, which requires a commission of lawyers, non-lawyers, and judges to vet candidates before the governor makes an appointment, was adopted to remove judicial seats from the grasp of party bosses who previously used them for patronage. Voters have repeatedly affirmed this structure, defeating repeal measures in 1942 and 2012, with the latter rejection occurring by a three-to-one margin.
Supporters note that the plan is not merely a local quirk but a national model, with some two dozen states adopting variations of its merit-selection approach. They contend that recent Republican efforts to dismantle the system are reactive, driven by specific judicial rulings that hindered political goals rather than by a broad consensus for change. In the recent redistricting battle, the Supreme Court upheld the will of voters who signed a petition to put the new congressional map on hold, a decision that aligned with the plan’s intent to provide a check on legislative power.
What the Numbers Show
The Missouri Plan was adopted by voters in 1940 and has survived multiple challenges. In 1942, voters decisively defeated a repeal measure. In 2012, a proposed overhaul that would have given the governor more control was rejected by a 3-to-1 margin. Currently, the commission consists of three lawyers elected by lawyers in each appellate district, three non-lawyers appointed by the governor, and one state Supreme Court judge selected by the court. Judges face retention votes at the first general election after one year in office, and then every 12 years.
Recent political dynamics in Missouri show a unified Republican government, with the party holding every statewide elected office. The current controversy centers on a mid-decade congressional redistricting effort intended to increase GOP representation from six to seven seats. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that Secretary of State Denny Hoskins was in contempt for ignoring its order to restore the old map, though the court ultimately decided not to have him arrested. Hoskins subsequently instructed local election officials to distribute ballots using the old map.
The Bottom Line
The debate over judicial selection in Missouri reflects a broader national trend of elected officials seeking to reshape institutions that limit executive or legislative power. Similar efforts have occurred in North Carolina, where the General Assembly stripped authority from Democratic governors, and in Wisconsin, where Republicans threatened to impeach a Supreme Court justice to protect gerrymandered maps. In Missouri, the immediate next step is State Rep. Loy’s intention to file a new proposal on Dec. 1, the first day lawmakers can file bills for the next session.
If the proposal advances, it would fundamentally alter the balance of power in Missouri’s government, potentially allowing the governor to install judges who align with his political priorities without the buffer of a merit commission. However, any change to the Missouri Plan, which is enshrined in the state constitution, would likely require voter approval, setting the stage for another high-stakes referendum. The outcome will depend on whether the recent court battles have shifted public opinion enough to overcome the historical precedent of voters defending the nonpartisan selection process.