Perspective: Historic majorities create opportunities, responsibilities

On Tuesday, Republicans ran the table, increasing our already veto-proof majorities in both chambers. House Republicans won nearly every every competitive race in the state, ending the night with 117 Republicans set to take office in January.

On Wednesday morning, Rep. Linda Black switched parties, adding another to the total. Senate Republicans added one more seat, bringing their total to 25. The House requires 109 votes to override a veto.

The legislative process has always been messy - no matter who has been in charge. You know the saying, laws and sausage. Bigger margins brings even greater responsibility. House Democrats lost members who were effective in spotting unintended errors in legislation. With even fewer members of the loyal opposition, the majority party must now be ever more vigilant. As one experienced legislator told me Wednesday, "We cannot allow our huge majority to turn the House "perfection' calendar into the "good enough' calendar." I agree.

New House leadership

In January, the House will be led by a new speaker and majority floor leader. Rep. John Diehl from St. Louis takes over as speaker, and Rep. Todd Richardson from Poplar Bluff will be the floor leader. Both new leaders are detail-oriented lawyers able to marshal broad coalitions of legislators to pass legislation. Both are also committed to a more thoughtful approach with overwhelming majorities. I look forward to serving with each in their new roles.

"Dark money' attack ads snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Politics ain't beanbag, so your mother's rule about "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" does not apply. In the past six weeks, a non-stop barrage of attack ads were unleashed against Judge Joyce. The ads were paid for by groups that either don't disclose their donors or which funnel money through a national organization.

While nearly every other Democrat in a close race in Missouri and nationally lost, Judge Joyce prevailed. It seems to me that the consultants and secret big money donors likely snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Though your mother's rule does not not apply, a different rule should: those willing to spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to malign someone in a local election ought to at least have the courage and the decency to put their own name in the public domain.

What circuit court judges actually do

When non-lawyers think of a judge's role, many may think of Chief Justice John Roberts' description of a judge as umpire - they apply the rules, not make them. This concept is a perfect fit for appellate judges. They do not have the authority to determine the facts of a case - to choose which witnesses to believe or disbelieve. Instead, they take the facts as found by the trial court and apply them to the law of the case, whether that's an administrative rule, a statute, or the Constitution.

Trial court judges have a more robust role than appellate judges. While they sometimes handle high-profile cases on the Constitution, the vast majority of their work involves criminal trials (from violent to petty offenses), divorce and custody proceedings, adult abuse allegations, debt collection and land-lord tenant cases, business disputes, and torts.

For most cases heard in circuit court, the law is not in dispute. Instead, the parties dispute the facts and how the law should apply to them. In trials, a circuit judge must make frequent rulings on the admissibility of evidence based on rules that defy labels as "conservative" or "liberal." Instead, they are designed and have been tested over centuries as the best way to ensure that fact-finders (whether judge or jury) remain focused on reliable and fair evidence. In jury trials, the judge must also ensure that the jury instructions are accurate statements of the law.

In non-jury trials, which constitute a majority of cases, trial court judges must also determine the facts. This too is a skill not readily susceptible to partisan or ideological categorization.

While the role of a circuit court judge remains the role of an umpire, their duty to determine the facts is more difficult than a home plate umpire's job of calling balls-and-strikes. For the umpire and appellate judge, all the facts are right in front of them. For the trial judge, the "facts" often consist of a he-said, she-said mess of contradiction and confusion. (Just think of all the different eyewitness accounts of the Michael Brown case.)

In custody cases, the judge must determine the parenting arrangement that would be in the best interests of the child. In nasty cases, the judge must separate the bitterness that the parents feel for each other, and how it might infect the trial, with the long-term interests of the children. Business disputes, when not tried to a jury, require the judge to determine which side is more truthful. In criminal sentencing, the judge must weigh the facts with the law, and their knowledge of the defendant. Then they must determine the appropriate sentence -whether its prison, probation, or, for offenders with substance abuse problems, drug or DWI court.

If you have an experience with our courts, it will fall into one of these non-ideological, non-partisan boxes. And what will matter for you is whether the judge has the life experiences and temperament to make fair and impartial decisions.

Rams in St. Louis or L.A.?

On Wednesday, Gov. Nixon announced a two-man task force to lay out the options for the St. Louis region and Missouri to keep the Rams in St. Louis. I'm interested to see the options, but will be highly skeptical of any plan that involves your tax dollars.

State Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, represents Missouri's 60th District.