The News Tribune asked the candidates in the Aug. 4 primary election for Cole County Division 2 circuit judge, Division 3 circuit judge and Division 5 associate circuit judge to answer the following question submitted by a reader.
Republican candidates for Division 2 circuit judge are David Bandre and incumbent Dan Green. There are no Democratic candidates for the position.
Republican candidates for Division 3 circuit judge are Cotton Walker and Mark Richardson. There are no Democratic candidates for the position.
Republican candidates for Division 5 associate circuit judge are Brian Stumpe, Todd Smith, Matt Willis and Tim Anderson. The winner of the Republican primary will face uncontested Democratic candidate Scott Evans in the November general election.
Can you explain your judicial philosophy in plain English?
Circuit Judge Division 2
Dan Green: “The phrase ‘judicial philosophy’ is usually used in the setting of the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In this context, my judicial philosophy is textualism/originalism. But in Missouri, statutory and constitutional ‘philosophy’ is defined by stating that the legislative intent must be discerned from the text of the statute or amendment itself, and if a person of ordinary intelligence would find its meaning plain and clear, the analysis ends. Only if the text is ambiguous must the intent of the Legislature then be ascertained. This becomes an extremely complicated inquiry that requires an experienced and knowledgeable judge to decide.”
Dave Bandre: “Every person appearing in court gets a fair opportunity to present their version of the facts. Prosecutors have to prove their cases, and whether a litigant is a man or woman, black or white, rich or poor, I would listen to them and evaluate their claims. I would strive to assist in settlement where appropriate and try to let lawyers know in advance of a trial what is expected of them. I would maintain an open door policy to assist at all levels of litigation, as needed and agreed upon by the parties.”
Circuit Judge Division 3
Cotton Walker: “On the bench, I humbly listen to and weigh the evidence presented, know the law and make decisions. A trial judge must apply the relevant law to the facts of each case. In order to do that, sometimes we must interpret the law and even consider the intent of those who wrote the law. However, it is not the job of a trial judge to legislate from the bench or try to change the law. We are bound by the words on the page (as the law is written) and by previous decisions from higher courts.”
Mark Richardson: “Under my conservative approach, I have always followed and will follow my belief that a judge must faithfully interpret the Constitution or a law by following what the original intent was. If the original meaning is to be changed, it must be changed by amendment or repeal by legislation or popular vote of the citizens, not a judge. There is no unwritten or hidden right in the Constitution or a law. The Constitution and laws still mean what they meant when passed — nothing more and nothing less.”
Associate Circuit Judge Division 5
Todd Smith: “My judicial philosophy is closely aligned with the textualism scholarship of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. That approach focuses on the plain meaning of the words in a statute as written by the Legislature. The key to this doctrine is the belief that a judge’s role is not to create policy or legislate from the bench, but to stay faithful to the will of the people’s representatives.”
Brian Stumpe: “I am a strict constructionist, like Scalia. This means there is no room for politics from the bench. You only look at the words that are in the law. It is the Legislature’s job to write laws, not a judge’s. If the Legislature wanted something else in the law then, they should have said it. It is not the judge’s job to guess what they meant or decide what they should have written. As a strict constructionist, I hold the belief that judges do not legislate from the bench, they merely call balls and strikes and apply the law to the facts.”
Matt Willis: “My philosophy is twofold: First, the rule of law applies to everyone, including judges. Judges have to follow the law like everyone else. A judge is not a legislator. Judges interpret the law, they don’t make the law. A trial judge is required to interpret the statutes as written by the legislature and as interpreted by the higher courts.
“Second, justice should apply to everyone equally. Each person who comes before the court, whether victims of crime, members of the bar, or litigants, is a human being and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.”
Tim Anderson: “My judicial philosophy is found in the words of Micah 6:8 — ‘Do justice … love kindness … walk humbly.’
“Do justice: follow the law. Under our Constitution, the people, through our elected representatives, make law. Judges interpret and apply the law to facts.
“Love kindness: There are times when ‘kindness’ or ‘mercy’ is required. Judges need some discretion.
“Walk humbly: Judges are rightly warned to ‘consider carefully’ before they decide. While we are all called to ‘walk humbly,’ a judge has a higher call to conduct himself so that there is not even a hint of injustice or partiality in his court.”