The Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan has resulted in a more racially, ethnically and gender-based diverse bench, according to a state judiciary report on diversity and inclusion. However, the Missouri judiciary is still lagging nationwide diversity performance numbers.
The Diversity and Inclusion in the Missouri Judiciary study found that 15% of judges are people of color in nonpartisan courts and 2% in elected courts. That’s compared to 18% of judges nationwide who identify as other than white.
Excluding judges, 19% of court employees are racial and ethnic minorities, which is reflective of the 2020 U.S Census Bureau data.
In nonpartisan courts, 42% of judges are women compared to 24% in elected courts. Among judiciary employees and judges combined, 71% are female and 29% male.
"When the gender data for the Missouri Judiciary as a whole is examined, the ratio is better but still not reflective of the Missouri population," the 2022 report states.
The Diversity and Inclusion in the Missouri Judiciary report was issued by the Commission on Racial and Ethnic Fairness (CREF), a creature of the Missouri Supreme Court.
“One of the philosophies we've had on this is it's got to be data driven,” said Thompson Coburn Attorney Bill Bay who co-chairs CREF. “We're also looking at diversity training. We’ve talked about making some changes in registration and we're looking at a survey of structural racism issues.”
CREF was created in October 2015 after 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, a St. Louis suburb, in 2014.
Its mission is to eliminate systemic barriers to racial and ethnic fairness in the Missouri court system by identifying challenges, researching solutions and making recommendations for improvement.
“It is challenging,” Bay told the St. Louis Record.
Since its inception, CREF has issued annual reports in 2019, 2020 and 2021. In the last annual report, the Judicial Justice System Subcommittee focused on reviewing and updating the process of preemptory strikes in the court system to ensure a fair, race-neutral application.
One of the outcomes was a resolution that the Judicial Conference Committee introduce and support legislation lowering the minimum age of a juror from 21 to 18 years.
Another outcome is that the Judicial Conference Legislative Committee introduced and supported removing impediments to the availability of appropriate government records for use in compiling master jury lists.
Both resolutions were approved by the Judicial Conference.