SJR 105 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would substantially revise Missouri’s judicial selection system. It repeals multiple provisions of Article V and replaces them with a new framework under which appellate judges—supreme court and court of appeals judges—would be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, while circuit judges and associate circuit judges would be elected by the voters in their respective circuits or counties. The measure also preserves existing judges in office through the end of their current terms and sets out how vacancies would be filled going forward.
The resolution removes the current nonpartisan judicial commission structure for appellate courts and the related retention-election system for judges appointed under that model. It also eliminates the existing provisions governing judicial commissions, commission expenses, and restrictions tied to that appointment-and-retention process. In their place, the amendment creates a simpler appointment process for appellate vacancies and an election-based process for circuit and associate circuit vacancies, including special rules for filling vacancies and for the timing of elections.
If adopted, the proposal would change Missouri’s Constitution and, by extension, the state’s judicial selection laws and procedures. It would shift power over appellate judicial appointments to the governor and Senate, while increasing direct voter selection of trial-level judges. The amendment would also affect the operation of judicial vacancies, election administration, and the legal status of the current nonpartisan commission system.
The available context shows no committee transcripts and no recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal legislative sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill text and caption alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for replacing Missouri’s merit-selection/retention model for appellate judges with executive appointment and legislative confirmation, while keeping local judicial elections for circuit-level courts.
The main point of contention inherent in the proposal is the tradeoff between judicial independence and democratic accountability. Supporters would likely favor greater voter control over trial judges and a more politically accountable appointment process for appellate judges, while opponents would likely object to the elimination of the nonpartisan commission system and retention elections, which are designed to reduce partisan influence in the courts.
Impact
This joint resolution would amend Article V of the Missouri Constitution by repealing the current nonpartisan commission and retention-election provisions for appellate judges and replacing them with gubernatorial appointment and Senate confirmation for supreme court and court of appeals vacancies. It would also require circuit and associate circuit judges to be elected, and it would alter the constitutional rules governing vacancies, judicial terms, and the administration of judicial selection. Because it is a constitutional amendment, it would not change statutes directly unless implementing legislation were later enacted, but it would supersede any inconsistent state law and require changes to Missouri’s judicial selection framework.
Sentiment
No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the available materials. The bill’s caption and text suggest a reform-oriented approach that favors elected trial judges and appointed appellate judges, indicating support for a more politically accountable judiciary. At the same time, the absence of debate records means there is no direct evidence of support, opposition, or compromise from lawmakers in the supplied context.
Contention
The central controversy is the replacement of Missouri’s existing nonpartisan judicial commission system for appellate judges with direct gubernatorial appointment and Senate confirmation. Supporters of the bill would likely argue that this increases accountability and simplifies judicial selection, while opponents would likely contend that it politicizes the appellate bench and removes a merit-based screening process. Another likely point of disagreement is the shift toward electing circuit and associate circuit judges, which raises concerns about campaign politics, judicial independence, and the role of voters in selecting judges.