Law Matters: Reflections of Chief Justice Michael A. Wolff

Promises, Promises ... What Should a Judicial Candidate Say?

Discussion Questions

1. How is the constitutional role of a judge significantly different from that of a legislator or the governor? How does that affect a judicial candidate could or should promise in an election campaign?

2. If a judge announces a policy position or speculates about how he/she might rule on an issue, how could that affect the judge’s ability to hear future cases? How will additional judicial recusals affect the efficiency of the court system?

3. In order to assist voters in the non-partisan retention elections, The Missouri Bar asks lawyers who practice in front of judges who are up for retention to evaluate the judges for fairness, expediency and knowledge of the law. The results of the evaluations are available to the public. Do you think these kinds of evaluations are helpful to voters? Do they in any way infringe upon the constitutional role of a judge? What would be the problem with using this kind of judicial evaluation in a contested election?

4. The Missouri Bar is experimenting with asking jurors as well as lawyers to evaluate trial judges who are up for retention in St. Louis County. The jurors would evaluate the judges for fairness, neutrality, attentiveness, control over proceedings and an ability to provide a sense of dignity to the proceedings. The results of the evaluations will be available to the public. If it appears this is effective, the other trial judges chosen under the non-partisan court plan will be evaluated in the future. Do you think this is a good idea? Do any of these evaluation standards infringe upon the constitutional role of a judge?

5. Judge Wolff mentions that in smaller counties it is easier for the voters to know about their judicial candidates. Do you agree with that statement?