Last week's legislative defeat of a proposed change in the way the state selects its Supreme Court, appellate and some circuit court judges means the issue is dead for the 2008 session. But the measure could be revisited again next year, according to Rep. Mike Sutherland of Warren County (R-99). The Republican-sponsored constitutional amendment legislation sought to remove state Supreme Court judges from the nominating committee which submits a list of three finalists to the governor for judicial appointments. The measure also would have reduced the number of positions appointed by the Missouri Bar Association and given the governor greater latitude in rejecting an entire slate of nominees. Sutherland voted against the change and was part of a group of 20 Republicans who broke party lines to oppose the legislation. A total of 63 Democrats opposed the measure. Only one Democrat, Juanita Walton of the 81st district in St. Louis, supported its passage. The bill was defeated by an 83-69 margin. "I voted against the measure because I believed it would make the appointment of those judges more of a political issue, rather than less of one," said Sutherland from the floor of the house chamber in Jefferson City Monday. "In my opinion, the reason Missouri's current system works so well is because it takes much of the political aspect out of the picture when judges are appointed," added Sutherland. Sutherland said Missouri's current judge selection process "has worked for a long time and is a model system which many other states also use." In 1940, Missouri voters approved a measure dividing the state into 45 judicial circuits in which the five most heavily populated areas (including St. Louis and Kansas City) became single-county circuits with judges selected by non partisan committees. In every other judicial circuit, including the 12th district (Warren, Montgomery and Audrain counties), the judges are elected by popular vote of the citizens. "I think it's very possible we'll see some form of this issue come up again," Sutherland said. "It had some elements which I felt could have been beneficial to the system. With some better provisions, it might become an issue which could gain the support it needs to move ahead. "But the form in which it was presented to us this time was unacceptable," he added. "To put liberal bias back into the appointment of Supreme and Appellate judges was not a good way to go." Sutherland pointed to the state of Illinois as an example of a system where the appointment of higher court judges has received much criticism. The House defeat coincided with a decision by supporters of the measure last week to shut down a petition drive, calling for additional changes to the judge selection process, to place the measure on November's general election ballot. "I feel the voters would have rejected it anyway," Sutherland said. Sutherland, who will be seeking his fourth term in the Missouri House in November, said he did not believe Missouri's system for selecting higher court judges is perfect. "I'm not saying there is no need for judicial reform within the current system," he observed. "I believe we need to hold judges accountable. I'm just not sure this (measure) accomplished that. "A proposal alone doesn't make something a good idea," he continued. "The fact the vote was rejected overwhelmingly and wasn't even close indicates this measure contained some bad provisions." Still, Sutherland said the bill did contain some attractive features. Chief among those attributes was a provision which allows the governor to reject an entire slate of judicial candidates if he felt it lacked any suitable candidates. "It gave the governor more influence in the process of selecting judges, which I felt was an acceptable proposition," Sutherland explained.