Proposes a constitutional amendment changing how judges are selected to certain courts
Summary
House Joint Resolution 5 proposes a constitutional amendment to change Missouri’s judicial selection system for certain courts. It would repeal existing constitutional provisions that use nonpartisan judicial commissions to nominate candidates for appointment and replace them with a system in which the governor appoints judges by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The amendment applies to vacancies in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and circuit or associate circuit judges in the City of St. Louis and Jackson County.
For judicial circuits outside St. Louis and Jackson County, the resolution preserves a local option process but changes the terminology and structure to reflect gubernatorial appointment rather than commission-based selection. Voters in a circuit could still decide by majority vote whether judges in that circuit should be appointed by the governor, and they could later vote to discontinue that method, subject to the same petition and election timing rules. The measure also removes the constitutional language establishing nonpartisan judicial commissions and related nomination procedures.
Impact
If adopted, HJR5 would significantly alter Article V of the Missouri Constitution by eliminating the nonpartisan judicial commission system for the covered courts and replacing it with gubernatorial appointment subject to Senate confirmation. This would affect the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and certain circuit and associate circuit judges, while also changing the local-option framework for other judicial circuits. The amendment would shift authority away from judicial nominating commissions and toward the executive and legislative branches, and it would require voter approval at a general or special election before taking effect.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the available context suggests the measure is framed as a structural reform to judicial selection rather than a narrowly technical change. The resolution’s language indicates a clear policy preference for direct gubernatorial appointment with Senate oversight. Because no discussion transcripts or vote history are included, there is no documented public sentiment in the record provided beyond the proposal itself.
Contention
The main point of contention is the replacement of Missouri’s long-standing nonpartisan commission-based judicial selection process with a system centered on gubernatorial appointment and Senate consent. Supporters would likely view the change as increasing accountability and aligning judicial appointments more closely with elected officials, while opponents would likely argue it reduces judicial independence and weakens the nonpartisan character of the current system. A secondary issue is the continued local-option mechanism for circuits outside St. Louis and Jackson County, which preserves voter choice but still changes the default selection method and the terminology used in the constitution.