Siettmann, Roe, Cashill - Stuck in the Middle with Funk

In the comments to my posting of the Funkhouser budget letter, I've been questioned about our Mayor's recent hiring of Mark Siettmann, a man who formerly worked for Jeff Roe's company, Axiom Strategies, as well as Jack Cashill's attempts to portray himself as an influential member of Funkhouser's inner circle. One of the joys of blogging is that I always get to pick and choose what I write about, and it's easy to avoid issues I don't want to talk about. But the questions raised are fair questions with (I think) interesting answers, so here goes.

First off, I don't think Cashill has any influence on the Mayor outside of his own mind. If Mark let the guy look at some of his speeches and make suggestions that he didn't accept, well, that's just an example of Mark's kindness to a guy who not many people will give the time of day to. Cashill is loudly irrelevant and has been for years, and I admire Mark for treating him gently.

Jeff Roe is a different matter, though. It bothers me that Mark talks to the guy. (The advocate in me wants to point out some of the other Dems who have done the same thing, but that's advocacy, not logic.) While I understand that it's smart to get a diverse set of perspectives on issues, I have a problem with a lot of Jeff Roe's tactics. I've conveyed my displeasure at the idea, but I'm not the one who got elected Mayor, so that's not really my decision.

So, honestly, no, I don't like the whole consultant deal, but I'm not naive enough to be shocked. There's a limited pool of high-level talent out there, and most of them are entrenched to the same pro-developer, chattering class crowd that Mark ran against, and defeated. He kind of had to go outside the usual crowd, and he did.

Now, moving forward, here's where I stand. If Siettmann is shown to have written homophobic material, just get rid of him right away. I was wrong when I argued that Semler's appointment could be justified, and I learned from it. This case would be even easier - Mark should tell him to clean out his desk the day he gets the proof.

Assuming that doesn't happen, then I hope the guy does a super job. Remember, his job is to do communications, not policy. Those of us who know Mark know that the public persona of Mark Funkhouser is nothing like the real man. If someone can help the real man appear more clearly to Kansas Citians, that would be a fantastic thing. If someone can help show how foolish the City Council is when it makes outrageous mistakes in defiance of Mark (like when they gave Wayne "Lie on the Resume" Cauthen a fat 3 year contract), that would be a fantastic thing, too. Mark needs to shake up his public image if he is going to accomplish what is best for the city, so good luck, Mr. Seittmann.

Republican Compassion

I try to read broadly, to stretch my mind, test my ideas, and gain a few chuckles along the way. In a recent review of the right-wing blogosphere, I happened upon a brilliant example of Compassionate Conservatism at The Source - a rightwing blog that generates more litigation than logic. The particular article was entitled "The Christmas Rifle", and it is an unintentionally hilarious masterpiece.

It centers on the story of a kid whose father spent money on saving a widow and her family instead of buying a rifle for his son for Christmas. Set in 1881, the story is told from the point of view of the son, who comes to realize that the family's faces filled with gratitude for saving them from literal starvation were more important than his hoped-for Christmas rifle.

To really appreciate the story, it's worth noting that it's pure fiction. The author, Rian B. Anderson (the Source has the author's name wrong), wasn't born in 1881, but wisely chose to set his story in an imagined age of pre-New Deal rugged individualism he's never experienced.

The story starts off with a ritual denunciation of the demons of right-wing thought - "Pa never had much compassion for the lazy or those who squandered their means and then never had enough for the necessities." Just making sure you know that Widow Jenkins wasn't a welfare queen, because, if she were judged "lazy" by Pa, it would have been okay to let her little ragamuffins starve to death, right? One wonders what would have happened if Pa had seen Widow Jenkins refuse a lucrative career in prostitution, or why she hadn't been out chopping wood herself . . .

It's also humorous how taciturn Pa is - he undertakes the entire experience without explaining to his son where they're going or why. Strictly a need-to-know basis - Pa shares Dick Cheney's fetish for secrecy, it seems. Authority, to be really impressive, must assert itself without explanation.

But the funniest thing about the story is that, at the end, the kid feels all gooey and wonderful about the wonderful stroke of non-governmental largesse he has brought to a starving family, but all he really did is follow orders and he shares nothing of his own. Like so many of today's conservatives who are born on third base believing that he hit a triple, the boy in the story is blessed to be living in comfort, and perfectly untroubled with the fact that less fortunate children might have starved to death on Christmas Day if his Pa hadn't noticed "little Jakey out scratching in the woodpile with his feet wrapped in those gunnysack rags".

It takes a peculiar mindset to view near-starvation on Christmas as particularly heart-warming, but that is the intent of the post. In the world of "The Source", any act of near-compassion by a welfare-hating authority figure is worthy of celebration, even if it happened a century and a quarter ago. And even if it's fiction.

A Difference in Rumors - Jeff Roe and Mark Funkhouser, Jan Marcason and Tax Dollars

Yesterday was a funny day for rumors, and provided a great insight into the skewed priorities of Kansas City's political insiders. On the same day, two vastly different rumors hit my email box - one explosively interesting but nonsubstantive, and one explosively substantive but depressingly uninteresting. The former involved our favorite whipping boys, and the other involved large amounts of Kansas City tax dollars being siphoned away from basic services.

The Kansas City Star reported on the nonsubstantive one, of course. It touched off a minor explosion with a story that claims Mark Funkhouser is negotiating with Jeff Roe to bring him into his office in a paid advisory role. Among local dems, it is impossible to describe the furor without bringing Godwin's law into play. If you want to be a proper member of the chattering class, NOW is the time to engage in FULL FREAK-OUT!!! JEFF ROE REPLACING ED WOLF IN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE!!! Panic!!

I received emails and comments from people in full froth yesterday evening. How would I react to this news? Would I be a hypocrite and embrace Jeff Roe, after expressing my disapproval of his tactics many times? Or would I finally break with Mark Funkhouser and join all my friends in the chattering class, who coincidentally stand to make more money if the development dollars start gushing again?

How exciting! A clear choice!

And that is one of the very few areas I will claim to have far better judgment than the average observer of local politics. I prefer to react to facts rather than half-baked rumors. If I see Jeff Roe hired to take a position in the Mayor's office, I will react to that circumstance. Until then, though, I'm going to see what happens.

Meanwhile, I also heard a rumor that Jan Marcason is working on getting a 39th Street Tax Abatement Plan passed from the floor, even though it doesn't meet any of the requirements of the council-approved economic development policy.

As far as rumors go, that ought to be attracting far more attention than Jeff Roe. That would be a HUGE reversal of the city's steps toward effective financial policies. It involves labeling one of my favorite sections of Kansas City as blighted, and surrendering taxes that ought to be supporting our city budget and Kansas City's crushing financial burdens, all to help big time fat cats lock in a super-generous rate of return while ignoring the East Side.

But guess which rumor shows up on the Prime Buzz? Guess which rumor filled my email box last night?

I hope both rumors are false. If Jan Marcason or any other member of the City Council attempts to shovel expensive tax abatements to an undeserving project in a thriving section of town, tongues ought to be wagging, and reporters ought to be reporting.

I promise right here and now that if Jeff Roe replaces Ed Wolf in the Mayor's office, I will express my opinion of the move in terms that even Tony would think are negative.

Now, will the fans of gossip pledge to join me at a similar level of ferocity if Jan Marcason or any other Council Member really does try to steal tax dollars for the Price Development Group? We can't afford to run the spigot anymore, and that's not a rumor.

(Update: As detailed above, Jan Marcason is NOT seeking to give tax abatements to the 39th Street Project.)

How I Would Have Defeated the Bus Tax, or Thank You to Incompetent Rightwing Political Consultants

I supported the 15-year extension of the Bus Tax, and I voted in favor of it. It won handily - I even visited the Election Watch party in support of the issue and had a few of their tasty meatballs.

The people at the party were thanking each other, but they really should have been thanking Jeff Roe, the rightwing political consultant who led the opposition. If he had run a competent campaign, the 3/8 cent sales tax would have gone down in flames.

With the anonymous money thrown at Jeff Roe, I could have delivered a victory for the opponents.

Simply stated, choose a clean message and deliver it. Truly, it is that simple. There were enough real weaknesses in this tax extension that a good message would have spread like a virus to defeat this tax. The choices were out there. While I would have worked through a focus group to choose which one worked best, some of the options would have been:

- "Where'd Our Money Go?" - This catch-phrase would have focused on the lack of clarity surrounding the $22 million in revenue. Truth is, a lot of the money will be going to "planning" and other soft costs that don't really appeal to the average taxpayer. Making the KCATA explain exactly how it will be spending $22 million for 15 years would have put the pro-tax effort in an awkward, defensive position. Bus riders are a small percentage of the voting public, and most voters don't trust that the ATA spends its money wisely. Visually, show a bus covered in dollars pulling away from a frustrated taxpayer.

- "Not so fast!" - This campaign would exploit the fact that this tax extension really is a little premature. We don't have a light rail plan, we don't know how our bus system will work with whatever light rail plan we get, and the current tax doesn't run out until March of next year. Voters could be persuaded that it would be better to work it all out together in November. Visually, show a squad car pulling over a bus.

- "Where does it stop?" - Voters hate being duped. This tax was approved for 5 years back in 2003. Now they want 15 more years. Again, where's the plan for a sustainable transportation program? Visually, show a bus full of taxpayers trying to exit a bus driven by a maniacal driver, who won't stop.

Fortunately, the consultant behind the opposition ran a far weaker campaign. Instead of choosing a message and hammering it home, he tried to slam the plan and TIF financing and Kay Barnes, all while playing cutesy games like naming the organization Kansas Citians Against Tax Abuse (KCATA). Really, just dumb. Why undercut your credibility by looking like a fraud-feasor? Why run against TIF pigs when the connection is so tenuous? Why drag the former Mayor into it?

Whatever the reasons, I'm truly grateful that Jeff Roe got his hands on the money spent by the opposition. If that money had been spent effectively, the tax would not have been extended. Incompetence saved the day.

If I were Sam Graves, I would be getting nervous. Will Roe take down Graves, too?

The Complete Honest Truth About the Missouri Plan

I had a friendly conversation with a journalist a while back, and the topic briefly turned to the Missouri Plan. "Can't you make the Missouri Plan interesting?", I asked her. She shook her head no.

Today, I had an email exchange with a journalist who covers the courts, and his confusion about the Missouri plan was as complete as it could be, but it was innocent confusion. He really didn't understand some of the basic points, and, in his confusion, he had some very flawed perceptions.

What follows is my attempt to lay it all out. If the topic bores you, skip this post. It's not a particularly fun topic, and any honest analysis, as this one will be, cannot help but be complex and qualified. I'm not going to make strident points or state my opinions more forcefully than they deserve solely to win rhetorical points.

And I'm not going to allow comments on this one post. If you have honest questions or you want clarification on something, email me and I will do my best to respond. If you find a factual error, please email me and I will make any necessary correction. But I'm not going to allow half-baked conspiracy theorists or unstable, misguided souls to turn this into a cacophony of lies and half-truths. If you disagree with some of my conclusions or opinions, I wish you the best in finding another soapbox.

What is the Missouri Plan for Judicial Selection?

The Missouri Plan is a system for selection of judges and deciding whether they should hold onto their offices. Some call it the Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan, but I prefer the simpler and less confusing "Missouri Plan", as there is plenty of partisanship in any system of judicial selection. Missouri has three levels of state courts - the trial courts (Circuit Courts), the Appellate Courts (divided into 3 districts), and the Supreme Court.

The Trial Courts: Most trial judges in Missouri are elected. They participate in regular elections, with campaign signs and the whole kit and kaboodle. But, because they are only judges for a particular circuit (usually 2 or 3 counties - it depends on population), the campaigns are relatively modest affairs. You don't see massive TV budgets or major campaign contributions. Many, or most, local lawyers donate to both sides in a close race.

It's important to recall that there are a lot of other judges in Missouri that are not part of the Missouri Plan. Federal judges make a lot of headlines, but they get appointed under the Federal system, with its Senate approval process. Federal judges get lifetime appointments, and face no retention elections. There are also municipal judges - employed by municipalities to handle traffic tickets and ordinance violations. The systems for choosing them vary widely - the Kansas City judge who got caught taking loans from lawyers was not a Missouri Plan judge.

In St. Louis City and Jackson, Platte, Clay and St. Louis Counties, the judges are chosen through the Missouri Plan. The last three listed changed to the Missouri Plan in the 1970s, when the voters chose to forego elections. In each of the Missouri Plan circuits, judicial nominations are made commissions composed of the chief judge of the court of appeals district in which the circuit is located, plus two lawyers elected by the bar and two citizens selected by the governor. Thus, three of the panelists (the appellate judge and the citizens) are chosen by governors at one point or another, and two are selected by lawyers.

Appellate Courts: There are three Courts of Appeals in Missouri. One covers the Eastern and Northeastern counties and normally meets in St. Louis, one covers the Western and Northwestern counties and normally meets in Kansas City, and one covers the Southern part of the state, and normally meets in Springfield. Appellate judges don't try cases - they read briefs, listen to oral arguments, and write opinions.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in Missouri. Most of its work is reviewing cases where the one of the Appellate Courts has already made a decision. If the Appellate Court was way out of line with its decision, or if the Appellate Courts issue differing rulings on the same issue, then the Supreme Court might choose to take a case and issue a ruling.

The nominations for the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court are made by a commission composed of three lawyers elected by lawyers, three citizens selected by the governor, and the chief justice, who serves as chair. Each of the geographic districts of the Court of Appeals must be represented by one lawyer and one citizen member on the Appellate Judicial Commission. The elections for the lawyers are low-key affairs, with most of the campaigning taking the form of simple letters written by the candidate or his or her supporters and mailed to lawyers in the district. There's not any fundraising or aggressive campaigning - the lawyers elected are generally people who have built up a good name among their fellow attorneys. I've never seen a lawyer mention a party affiliation in his or her mailings.

Each of the commissions comes up with a panel of three nominees, and the governor gets to choose one of them (if he doesn't, the commission gets to do it). The commission is where a lot of the magic happens. I wish I could claim that the commission makes its choices solely on merit, regardless of polltics or influence, but that would be a lie.

If it's not all merit, what else is there? Well, part of it is definitely political connections. But it's kind of funny - you don't want to be too political. 95% of the time, it's best to be someone who's worked on a few campaigns in the background, but nobody too controversial. You want to be the sort of person that, should you make the panel of three that gets submitted to the governor, you'll have a few friends who are well-connected to the governor call or write the governor on your behalf. But you don't want to be the kind of person that, should the governor select you, he will be making enemies, or creating the appearance that he has appointed a political hack.

I don't want to understate the good faith of the governors, either - including the current governors. A judicial appointment is likely to be on the bench a good long time, long after the Governor will have left office. You want to appoint people who reflect your values and will do so ably. A half-wit party hack doesn't fit that description, so governors do seek people they sincerely believe are qualified and able to persuade others that their rulings are correct.

What is the Missouri Plan for Judicial Retention?

This is pretty simple. At the first election after a newly appointed judge has served a year, s/he is put on a ballot for a simple yes or no retention. They don't have opponents, and they aren't listed by party. If they win a majority, and I don't believe anyone has lost an initial retention election, they get a full term before facing another retention election. Supreme Court and Appellate Court judges have 12 year terms, and Circuit Court (trial) judges have 6 year terms.

These are pretty bare-bones elections. Judges are bound by a judicial ethics to NOT do a lot of typical campaigning, but, on the other hand, they don't have much need to do so when they aren't facing an opponent.

The Missouri Bar and League of Women Voters distribute voter guides before retention elections, including evaluations of judges on the basis of things like fairness, legal analysis skills, diligence and decisiveness. Lawyers and jurors do the evaluations, and they often have some surprising results. I know that the judges study their results carefully, and often use them as a kind of job evaluation to identify their perceived weaknesses.

How Well Does the Selection System Work?

In my opinion, we have a fantastic bench in Missouri, and much of that is due to the Missouri Plan. I say that as someone who knows a lot of judges, has some experience in the courtroom and appellate courts, and no longer appears before judges, so I don't have a lot of incentive to pull my punches. (I should point out I've appeared in front of good elected judges in Missouri, but I've always been underwhelmed by the elected judges in other states, where the elections are high-financed affairs.)

The strength of the bench is not a figment of my Democratic leanings, either. Back when I was a young lawyer, the Missouri Supreme Court was 100% composed of appointments by John Ashcroft, and I never heard (or made) a peep complaining that we needed to change our judicial appointment system. Ray Price, as Republican a man as I have ever met, remains one of my favorite people I have ever known to put on the black robes. Judge Ann Covington was wonderful. Judge Elwood Thomas may have been the best judge in the history of the state, though sad fate prevented him from proving it. The only person I thought at the time was a weak pick on the Court, Chip Robertson, turned out to be a fine judge.

At the trial and appellate level, there have been several judges that I thought should not have been appointed. In a couple cases, my original perception remains. There are a couple judges who I think have too much of a plaintiff's orientation, and a couple I think have too much of a defendant's bias. But, despite those instances, I always felt 100% confident that the judges were playing things straight. There's never a sense in Missouri courts that "the fix is in".

How Well Does the Missouri Plan Retention System Work?

As written here before, the retention system works, though it might not feel like a "real election". I saw Judge Hutcherson get knocked off when it was deserved. Frankly, I haven't seen any other judges that deserved to lose. The selection process works, so the retention process shouldn't be generating a whole lot of heat and controversy. I heard Chip Robertson point out that the only baseball umpire that most Missourians can remember is Don Denkinger - the good umpires, like good judges, don't generate a lot of attention for themselves.

Which also raises another important factor for judges - the necessity of making unpopular decisions makes them susceptible to unfair election pressures. If you are unfairly accused of a crime, do you want to face a judge who wants to make "tough on crime" his or her campaign slogan? Similarly, is it fair to ask a judge to throw out a coerced confession in a rape case if s/he is going to be up for an election a month? Justice is not always popular, and elevating popularity as a qualification for judges in our cities will not serve the public interest.


What are the Alternatives?

That's part of the problem - the Republicans are playing hide and seek with their plans. Some advocate for more elections, some want "advice and consent" of the legislature, and some want to give the governor more opportunity to stack the commission. It's impossible for me to fairly address the benefits and weaknesses of any specific plan with any specificity.

One common thread, though, is that all the proposals I've seen increase the influence of political parties and money on the process. While that's an accepted part of the process for the other two branches, the judicial system is different. The judicial system relies on the perception of fairness to justify its existence. We accept and expect partisanship in our state house and governor's mansion, but it is anathema to the Courthouse.

Conclusion

The Missouri Plan works well as a means of selecting and retaining judges. It has served our citizens through the time of the Ascroft court and it continues to serve today. The agitation for change to the plan does not arise from any dissatisfaction with the judges on our bench. Republicans don't really want to see Judge Coe in Kansas City. But I believe that a minority of Republicans think that they can drive some uninformed voters to the polls to vote against "activist judges", and a few others sincerely believe that "democracy" is the best way to select legal specialists (though I doubt they would select heart surgeons or plumbers based on political campaigns).

As my journalist friend acknowledged, this is not a fun or interesting issue. But it is a wildly important one. Not because I particularly care about the judges themselves - they could find other jobs if they needed to. But I care deeply about whether the courts in Missouri will continue to work as well as they currently do. I worry about political consultants playing a larger role in our judicial system. I worry about losing the perception of fairness in our courts, and I worry about losing the reality of fairness.

What we have works. Every alternative being pressed by the Republican political consultants will increase the role of money, political partisanship and political consultants. I don't want to give political consultants a bigger role in our judicial system. I don't want our courthouse to resemble the City Council.

Who does?

Tired of My Missouri Plan Posts?

I've been outspoken about the right-wing attacks on the Missouri Plan. To sum up, the attacks are misguided at best, and an example of the worst spawn of right-wing partisan hardball aimed at bringing the independent judiciary under the control of party bosses at worst.

Tomorrow evening at 6:30, the Committee for County Progress will be hosting a forum on the Missouri Plan, featuring Dale Youngs providing a history of the Plan, former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Judge Chip Robertson (appointed by Ashcroft) defending the Plan and Professor Bill Eckhardt criticizing it. It will be held at Professor Eckhardt's home court, the the courtroom at the UMKC School of Law, and admission is free.

It should be a great forum - I hope that you'll consider coming out and hearing views from somebody other than me . . .

A Partisan Decision? A Cleansing of the Record?

One of the rhetorical tricks used by the partisans who want to ruin the Missouri Plan is to challenge those who support it to find a partisan decision by a non-Missouri Plan judge. Of course, in Missouri, those decisions are made by circuit courts, whose decisions don't get published, so it's a bit of a false challenge, but they're kind of desperate for arguments, so they use what they can.

In responding to a comment I probably should have ignored, though, I recalled that Jeff Roe had claimed that his attacks are causing judges to alter their opinions. I went in search of the article, but I couldn't find it. It appears to have been deleted - perhaps a way of clearing out an inconvenient acknowledgment that partisan politics should stay clear of the bench?

Fortunately for those of us concerned about the courts more than about wedge issues, google cache provides the smoking gun:

September 19, 2007
Is Conservative Criticism Correcting the Courts?

Two recent court decisions out of Jefferson City give The Source hope…but not much comfort…that our state justice system may be coming around. The decisions, both by Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan, upheld legislative action and a maintained a strict reading of the state’s constitution. Callahan, who had offered more liberal interpretations of the constitution in the past, used sound judgment in limiting the court’s role in setting policy.

In the first decision Callahan used the constitution’s precise language and recent legislative history to rule that Missouri’s schools were receiving adequate and fair funding. In the second ruling regarding MOHELA funds, Callahan again used legislative intent as a basis for his ruling saying that not allowing the legislature to decide where public funds could be directed would be “novel”.

The Source would note that it is not the result of the decisions which gives us hope, but how the decisions were made. Callahan, bucking recent trends, recognized the power of the legislature to write law and recognized the limits on the court to re-write it.

Unfortunately, Callahan’s decisions could be overturned by judges at a higher level who have not yet learned the lesson Callahan seems to have learned. Given the recent controversy surrounding judicial nominations, The Source has to wonder if political favor, and not the Missouri Constitution, will ultimately win the day.

Missouri Plan - Retention Elections Work

One of the common arguments employed by the people who would scrap our model system for choosing judges is that the retention elections are ineffective. Judges typically garner over 60% of the vote in favor of retention, even though, they argue, that the typical voter could not identify any of the judges on the ballot. The votes are therefore meaningless and uninformed.

Of course, this argument ignores the fact that bad judges have lost their retention elections.

Even if you ignore the true facts and accept the flawed premises, though, the argument is invalid. Here's why:

1. High retention rates reflect high general satisfaction with the judicial branch in Missouri. Even accepting that the voters might not know all the names on the ballot, the Missouri bench is one of the strongest in the nation, with a well-earned reputation of producing logical, well-reasoned handling of difficult cases. When judges are doing their jobs well, there's no reason a typical voter would or should know their names. If judges were making crazy, "activist" rulings, we would hear about them. In the case of judges, no news is good news. If a judge winds up a celebrity, and his or her name is on the mind of typical voters, that reflects trouble.

2. Voters receive good, solid information on judges - the fact that it does not penetrate their minds to the extent that they remember all their names doesn't mean they are not casting informed votes. The Bar Associations aggressively distribute survey information about the judges - information compiled from attorneys who have appeared in front of them (roughly half of whom have lost!), and jurors who have served in their courts. This information is incredibly helpful. It's also almost always very positive, and we all know how dull good news is. But if there were a judge listed with atrocious approval ratings, you can bet people would remember the name!

3. The fact that our judges get overwhelming approval doesn't mean our voters are dumb - it means that our judges are good!

People like Jeff Roe want to take the Missouri Plan away from those of us who are pleased with our judicial branch. They will try to fool us with illegitimate arguments and false "truths". As shown here, though, even when you accept their claims as truthful, their logic does not hold up. The Missouri Plan has resulted in a bench that Missourians overwhelmingly approve of. Would you really rather trade that in for a bench that is as popular as our legislature, or Governor Blunt?

Missouri Plan, Wedge Issues, and "Someone's Gonna Get Their Eye Put Out"

As written here before, the Republican efforts to undermine the Missouri Plan are simply the latest cynical attempt by political insiders like Jeff Roe to create a wedge issue. Informed, thoughtful voters on both sides of the aisle recognize that further injecting electoral politics into judicial selection will undermine the independence of the judiciary, to the disservice of all. But certain political insiders care less about the damage done to the state's legal system than they do about driving mobs of misinformed Neanderthals to the polls intent on driving out the "activist judges".

Whenever the rough-housing among her six children would begin getting rough, my mother would warn, "It's all fun and games until someone gets their eye put out." It was her wise way of encouraging us to look down the road and see how escalation of nudges to pushes to shoves to pokes was going to lead to an all-out donnybrook. As the youngest boy, I learned to appreciate the warning, since I usually came out the worst for the wear.

Folks, wedge issues are all fun and games until someone gets their eye put out. I understand that those of us who enjoy politics enjoy the prospect of a good wedge issue. I'll agree that the point of the minimum wage issue on the ballot in 2006 was only partially about raising hourly rates for workers - it was also about portraying the Republicans as heartless class warriors keeping the little guy down. Similarly, only a few of the originators of the gay marriage amendment in 2004 really cared about gay marriage - it was mostly about getting fearful conservatives to the polls.

Some people came out of these earlier scrapes with some bruises, but no eyes were put out. Fast-food restaurants have managed to avoid the economic apocalypse they feared, and the gay community lost a right it never had in Missouri.

But this time the inter-party rough-housing is threatening to put out an eye. We've had a judicial selection process that has worked for decades, through Republican governors and Democratic governors. It was good enough for Governors Carnahan and Teasdale, and it was good enough for Governors Bond and Ashcroft. We don't have nasty, expensive campaigns funded by trial lawyers and insurance companies for Supreme Court judges, the way they do in some other states, and we don't want them.

Yesterday, I received the following press release from a group dedicated to preserving the Missouri Plan. I'm reprinting it in its entirety, because I think it's an important issue that all Missourians need to pay close attention to.

Coalition Names Six Former Chiefs as Honorary Co-chairs as List of Member Organizations Continues to Grow
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, October 30, 2007

JEFFERSON CITY — Following a summer fraught with criticism of the method by which a slot on Missouri’s Supreme Court would be filled, six former chief justices of the Court have joined an organization formed to protect Missouri’s nonpartisan court plan and preserve the independence of the judiciary.

“Having served as chair of the Appellate Judicial Commission during my tenure as chief justice, I know the plan works to keep politics out of the judicial selection process,” said John Holstein in agreeing to support Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts. “It troubles me that there are forces at work intent on injecting politics back into the process.”
Holstein, an appointee of Gov. John Ashcroft who served on the high court from 1989 through 2002 and as chief justice from 1995-97, joins five other former chief justices who have agreed to serve as honorary co-chairs for Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts.
The other co-chairs:

* The Honorable Jack Bardgett – appointed by Gov. Warren Hearnes (D), served as chief justice from 1979-81.
* The Honorable Ann Covington, appointed by Gov. Ashcroft (R), served as chief justice from 1993-95.
* The Honorable Andrew Jackson Higgins, appointed by Gov. Joe Teasdale (D), served as chief justice from 1985-87.
* The Honorable Edward “Chip” Robertson, appointed by Gov. Ashcroft (R), served as chief justice from 1991-93.
* The Honorable Ronnie White, appointed by Gov. Mel Carnahan (D), served as chief justice from 2003-05.


“As former chief justices of the Missouri Supreme Court, we believe that Missourians depend on fair and impartial courts to provide stable and rational resolution of disputes, protect property and economic interests, and, when needed, protect people from the overreaching of government,” said Covington, the first woman to hold the position of chief justice on the court.

Through their involvement with Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts, the former chiefs will advocate for Missouri’s courts to remain accountable to the constitution and the laws of the state — not political pressure and special interests. For nearly 70 years, Missouri has been a model for the nation, creating a nonpartisan method for selecting judges that nominates judicial candidates based not on political party affiliation, but on merit. They are devoted to protecting Missouri courts from attacks by a small group of politicians and special interest groups.

“Unfortunately, Missouri’s highly respected nonpartisan court plan is under attack by special interests who believe that some other process – some politically-driven process – would produce judges of the same quality that now serve Missouri’s citizens as the final arbiters of the law,” said White, who retired from the court in July. “Justice should be fair and impartial. The Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan should be preserved to protect our individual rights.”

As the six former court chiefs join forces with Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts, membership in the broad-based coalition continues to grow, including nearly 40 business, education, religious, professional and consumer groups such as AARP Missouri, Missouri National Education Association, Committee for Economic Development and the Missouri Municipal League, in addition to a number of legal organizations.

“Our diverse membership proves that this isn’t an issue that matters only to attorneys and judges,” said Landon Rowland, Committee for Economic Development trustee. “Our system of judicial selection seeks the best qualified judges while maximizing independence and still allows a degree of direct accountability to Missourians.

“There’s a reason so many other state governments have adopted parts of the Missouri Plan – because it works.

Congressman Pete Stark on "Bad Sam" Graves

Here's what the Congressman from California's 13th District has to say about people like Sam Graves:

First of all, I'm just amazed they can't figure out, the Republicans are worried we can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where ya gonna get that money? You going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement. This bill would provide healthcare for 10 million children and unlike the President's own kids, these children can't see a doctor or receive necessary care. [...]

But President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up. In Iraq, in the United States and in Congress.

Believe it or not, Sam Graves still voted against insuring children. He needs to go. If you're outraged, go here to make a contribution to Kay Barnes.

It's Not About the Judges

One of the bits of "wisdom" that both parties have picked up on over the past decade or so is the importance of "wedge issues" to excite "their" voters and get them to show up at the polls on election day. The ideal wedge issue is one that your people are passionate about, but the other side is less interested.

The battle over the Missouri Plan is a wedge issue.

Stem cells are a decent example. If you believe that stem cell experimentation is murder, you are motivated to show up at the polls and save lives. If you believe stem cell research is simply a promising area of medical advancement, the accepted wisdom is that you're less motivated to get up and vote. Preventing murder with God on your side ought to generate more votes than supporting a bunch of nerds in lab coats doing stuff you don't really understand. So, if you want religious conservatives to show up at the polls, put stem cells on the ballot as a wedge issue. Other examples include the minimum wage, gun control and gay marriage.

This year, the Republicans are relying on activist judges instead of stem cell-murdering scientists to get their voters to the polls.

They've started laying the groundwork for their attack on the Missouri Plan already. They've tried to paint Chief Justice Laura Stith into a corner by making silly requests for meaningless documents. They've tried to falsely accuse the Nominating Commission of being "secretive". They've run billboards raising the specter of "activist judges", without being able to name a single Missouri state judge who qualifies for that flexible label.

The funny thing is, life without the Missouri Plan would be worse for all of us, Republicans and Democrats. That's why we're seeing Republican ex-judges and lawyers doing their best to stop this wedge issue. That's why Republican ex-Chief Justices have come out in favor of the Missouri Plan. That's why Lathrop & Gage evicted Jeff Roe from their offices after they started to get calls questioning their smelly alliance with the loudest opponent of the Missouri Plan.

Now, imagine for a moment that you are a conservative republican (I hope that's a stretch for you). Think for a second about having elected judges interpreting our laws and running our courtrooms. Think about the scoundrels and rascals those democrats have gotten elected statewide in the past, and think about the trends in republican popularity. Think about Chief Justice Bob Holden running our Supreme Court. Think about who would get elected to be our trial judges in Kansas City and St. Louis - where most big trials happen. Do you want Judge Coe handling your divorce?

Nobody intelligent really wants the Missouri Plan to go away. Not even Jeff Roe. But they are willing to risk damaging Missouri's judicial system for a one-time shot at motivating some ill-informed voters to the polls so they can vote against non-existent activist judges.

Let's hope that those who care about our judicial system more than about the next election win out.

AG Race Looks Like a Republican Brawl

Jay Nixon will be leaving the Attorney General's office to win the Governor's race in 2008 (Blunt has no chance, and may even draw a primary opponent), and the Republicans are lining up to take a (remote) chance on running against likely Democratic nominee Jeff Harris. More than any other, the Republican AG primary is shaping up to be a microcosm of all that is wrong with Missouri Republicans.

First off, we have Michael Gibbons, the simian South St. Louis Senator. Plainly stated, Michael Gibbons is a nanny state Republican who wants to make us all live in his world. The Republican party has a Libertarian streak that I occasionally admire - but Michael Gibbons is the exact opposite. He has drafted a law to prosecute families that allow twenty-year-olds nieces and nephews to participate in a Thanksgiving toast. He supported anti-consumer Tort Deform and reductions in the amount of compensation that injured workers receive. As Senate President Pro Tem, Gibbons gets and deserves much of the blame that Missourians are directing toward the ineffective Missouri legislature. He has no chance of winning, but he will raise lots of money from people seeking to buy favors in the Senate. I'm thrilled he's in the race, because he is unelectable and likely to ruin the bankrolls of the other candidates.

Chris Koster is a pretty boy candidate who seemed like he was on the fast track to Republican prominence. He's a smart guy, and even tells the truth once in a blue moon. “There is a sense in this building that if an interest group brings four really bad ideas to the table, we are obligated to pass at least one of them because they are our friends,” Koster once said when the insurance companies tried to gain virtual immunity for their misdeeds. Unfortunately, Koster's conscience is up for the highest bidder. Even when his gag reflex was triggered by the insurance companies' avarice, it was only after he had started working for a trial lawyer.

Most damning for Koster, though, is that he has hired Jeff Roe. Roe has shown himself to be incompetent at anything other than self-promotion. His career is over, after he single-handedly sunk Becky Nace's campaign for mayor. Dozens of people told me that she was their favorite candidate, but they refused to vote for her because she hired him. One of the biggest fights in the Gottstein/Gamble race grew out of a rumor that Gamble had hired Roe - the Gamble people viewed that as poisonous slander. Well, Koster sunk his own campaign when he hired Roe. Neither Koster nor Roe has a discernible shred of morality.

Finally, there's Catherine Hanaway, the current US Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. This one cracks me up. Remember when holding the US Attorney position was a huge badge of honor? Remember when being a US Attorney meant that you were a straight-shooting, highly competent attorney who earned a reputation for integrity? Those were the days, weren't they? Unfortunately, though, the Bush administration's contempt for competence and pride in partisanship has turned that post into a scarlet letter on the resume. What kind of voter would vote for someone appointed by Bush now?

On top of that, she's another St. Louis county Republican. She and Gibbons will split the bankroll of Clayton and Ladue, and the votes of all the SUV drivers on the East coast of the state. Because she's much smarter than Gibbons, less dogmatic and mildly better looking, she will have the edge over Gibbons, and the race will come down to a divisive, ugly and horribly expensive contest between her and Roe/Koster. With Roe/Koster in the race, we can be assured that mud-slinging and nastiness will alienate anyone who ever thought of voting for a Republican.

In a way, it's almost a shame. Jeff Harris, the Democratic candidate, is smart, well-respected, likeable, and well-informed. He's not a good candidate - he's a great candidate. For those of us who like watching good races, it's a shame he is going to face such weak competition.

Gottstein vs. Gamble - A Few Thoughts

There are several interesting races to be decided on March 27, but the one that is going to be drawing the pyrotechnics, probably even moreso that the mayoral race, is the race for the 4th District At-Large. The Gottstein vs. Gamble race appears to have all makings of an ugly, ugly donnybrook - which is sad, because I doubt the truth is going to be well-served, and the candidates are both going to come out of it damaged. Maybe, just maybe, cooler heads will prevails, but I'm not feeling really optimistic. If anyone cares, here are a few thoughts about the race . . .

1. Go Roe or No Roe? Rumor has it that Jeff Roe is helping out the Gamble campaign, and when I say "rumor", I mean rumor. I have no idea whether it is true or not, or whether he's being paid in cash, or promises, or not at all. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it were true, because even a political newcomer like Gamble can see that Roe is the kiss of death in Kansas City - ineffective and divisive.

I also have no idea where the rumor started - it seems that the Gamble side is enjoying their righteous indignation in denying the rumor much more than I've heard anyone from Gottstein's side spreading it. Could this be a case of falsely-claimed victim-hood being used as a political tool by Gamble? Wow, that would be so slimey it almosts sounds like something Roe would do . . .

In short, until somebody comes forward with proof that Roe is working for one of the candidates, both sides ought to drop it entirely - kind of a Gamble/Gottstein/Godwin's Law.

2. Debates or Forums? Gamble is trying to make hay by claiming that Gottstein is refusing to participate in "one on one debates". This is silliness - they are both at so many forums, etc., that anyone who hasn't seen them together just doesn't care. Which is most of us - sorry, but this is a kind of sleazy attempt to make it look like Gottstein, who has been all around town and met just about anyone who cares to vote, is somehow dodging Gamble.

Why would Gamble do this? Because he was a late-decider - he didn't decide that the City Council race was worth his while until January. So now, in an attempt to make up for his own lack of effort, he's trying to make it seem like Gottstein is trying some kind of stealth campaign. I gotta call "bullsh#t" on this one.

3. Small Business vs. Non-Profits? The Star thinks that Gamble is a small-business voice. Everyone admires small businesses - scrappy providers of jobs in the face of economic challenge. Count me in - I think it's great that Gamble employs lots of people in the "service industries", cleaning rooms and making food. But let's not go overboard with the small business rhetoric - this is a guy who is tied into a TIF Tax-give-away to the tune of a few million tax dollars taken from schools and potholes and pumped into profit margins.

Gottstein's experience comes from the nonprofit sector - a large and growing segment of our economy, but not one that has the reputation of financial sophistication. On the other hand, she has a Master of Public Administration from one of the best MPA programs in the country, and is well-equipped to participate in running a city government.

In a nutshell, neither should be claiming that experience gives them an edge. Both would be rookies on the city council, and both would need to learn on the job.

4. Jew vs. Catholic If there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room, it is the potential tension between the two communities. So far, with the exception of Tony's site, anti-Semitism has been silent, as has anti-Catholicism. Let's all hope it stays that way.

5. Clean Campaigns. I know Gottstein is committed to running a clean campaign, and I've heard that Gamble is similarly committed. On the other hand, both have lots of volunteers who want victory much more than they want a clean campaign. Also, exactly what is a "clean campaign"? Is discussing Gamble's TIF plan clean? Where should the line be drawn, and where will it be drawn in this race? What is responsible reporting of the truth, and what is smearing? And what of the "S/he started it" phenomenon, where one candidate engages in smear campaigning in response to a perceived smear from the other? Given the number of emails and outreaches I've already received in this race, I'm not optimistic that it will be a positive campaign focused on important issues. And that's disappointing, because what I know of both candidates is that they both deserve better, and are capable of better.

Another Funny Thing About Jeff Roe

In light of the grisly record of defeat his clients have suffered in recent elections, it's no huge surprise that Jeff Roe is so much better at promoting himself than he is at promoting his clients. As an example, google - "jeff roe" 2007 - and then google - "becky nace" 2007. Take a guess who wins . . .

Funk Slimed - Do I Smell a Roe? Or Not?

I received the following post card in the mail yesterday. The front included no identification of who produced or paid for it - it is a classic political hit piece put out by a coward who cannot get his or her facts straight.



Stuff like this makes me wonder what the people who worked on it and paid for it are thinking. Do you really think something like this will have an effect? I agree that the public is gullible, but this is too visually ugly and too factually wrong to be convincing. Dumb voters will be put off by the lousy production values, and smart voters will know that Kansas City has a dedicated tax to fund indigent health care. Even if Mark wanted to deny people health care (and anyone who knows him knows that is utterly ridiculous), it's not his choice.

But, really, does the producer of junk like this have no conscience at all? S/he knows that s/he is lying, and also knows that s/he is violating the law by sending out something like this without identification. Is it worth it? Do you feel like you're doing a good thing? Do you feel like you're helping Kansas City?

Of course, the obvious suspect is Jeff Roe, who is well-known to resort to lies and innuendo in sliming opponents. He's also known for being ineffective, so the fact that this was so poorly done seems to show Jeff's reverse midas touch.

But the funny thing is, having an amoral creep like Jeff Roe involved in the race gives cover for anyone else to act just like him. If you're with another candidate's camp, you're pretty safe to get as slimey as you like, because everyone will assume that the slime comes from the Nace campaign. Having someone like Jeff Roe involved in local politics lowers the ethical standards not just of Nace, but of everyone who is willing to engage in his tactics.