The House Judiciary Committee, where I serve as the Ranking Minority Member, has a long tradition of professionalism and bipartisanism. This year it has become a place for debate of hot button issues such as abortion and NAFTA. It is still the only committee in the Legislature that is composed of (almost) all attorneys so is still one place where debate is actually on the merits for the most part. I do a frequent newsletter that covers all the topics we work on but some of our work is really mostly of interest to attorneys. So, thought I would share a few of those topics.

"Children's Bill of Rights" will change courtroom procedures for children under 18

Court Procedure bill HCS HB 1611 passes House

On the floor when this bill was debated the lawyers in the House criticized it roundly but the Majority refused to permit any amendments. Interestingly the bill, although it deals with court procedures, came through the Family Services committee instead of Judiciary. Not one lawyer serves of the Family Service Committee. The bill, now that it has passed the House, is on its way to the Senate where it has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee.

Four lawyers voted in favor of the bill - Flook (R-Clay), Lipke (R-Cape Girardeau), Yates (R-Jackson) and Pratt (R-Jackson) Here is a summary of the bill as it passed the House by a vote of 100-48:

HCS HB 1611 -- CHILDREN'S BILL OF COURTROOM RIGHTS (Dixon)
COMMITTEE OF ORIGIN: Special Committee on Family Services

This substitute establishes a children's bill of courtroom rights that applies to all children testifying at a judicial proceeding. In its main provisions, the substitute:

(1) Assures a child the right to understand the oath administered in court and requires the court to present the oath in a developmentally appropriate manner;

(2) Grants the child the right to understand all questions asked of him or her;

(3) Requires the court to allow the child to testify at a time of day when the child is best able to understand the questions asked of him or her and to allow frequent breaks from testifying;

(4) Grants the child the right to have a comfort item that is approved by the court, such as a blanket or stuffed animal, when testifying;

(5) Grants the child the right to have a person present during his or her testimony to provide emotional support. The support person must abide by the rules established by the court;

(6) Requires the child to be questioned in a manner that is neither intimidating nor frightening which includes disallowing any attorney from raising his or her voice while questioning the child or making an argument; and

(7) Grants the child the right to be comfortable when testifying by adjusting the courtroom layout, conducting the proceedings outside of a courtroom, and relaxing the formalities of normal courtroom proceedings.

Bill to abolish the Failure to appear Driver License Suspension "do pass" from Judiciary

I am the sponsor, together with a very interesting set of co-sponsors, of House Bill 1641 that would repeal the statute that authorizes traffic courts to suspend the drivers license of persons who fail to appear or pay traffic tickets.

The statute RSMo 302.341 provides that the Dept of Revenue suspend the license of drivers who fail to pay tickets. That suspension remains of their record for life. This results in severe employment difficulties for some drivers whose job depends on having a clean driving record. And all drivers who suffer this Draconian sanction for being late paying a ticket end up paying higher insurance rates for years.

Not surprisingly many traffic judges and court clerks love the statute because it gives them a huge hammer to collect tickets. The problem is that the hammer leaves permanent scars on thousands of people annually. And, of course, the insurance companies love it because it runs up insurance premiums for safe drivers. The bill has an interesting set of co-sponsors ranging from some of the most conservative to most liberal House members.

House Joint Resolution 49 - the Non-partisan Court Plan attack

The attack on the Missouri Judiciary continues and will likely be debated this week in the House.

House Joint Resolution 49 would submit to the voters of Missouri changes to the non-partisan court plan that would give politicians greater control over the selection of judges. The issue has been on the front burner all session and is about to go the floor of the House for debate. Lawyers Weekly reported this week that both Republican candidates for Governor support changes to the plan while Attorney General Jay Nixon, the presumptive Democratic candidate opposes change and supports the current plan.

Mountains of paper have been passed out and hearings have been held. I will not try to summarize the arguments but give you the links below to look them over. Chip Robertson has been in the front of this debate defending the current plan and has been a presence this year in the hearing rooms.

Opponents of the plan have upped the ante a bit this week by submitting ballot language now approved by Secretary of State Carnahan to completely overhaul the plan. Here is the link to the ballot language and here is the link to the complete text of the changes . The threat is that if the HJR is defeated the issue will still be submitted to the voters via the petition process. This is interesting because this lays out what changes the proponents really care about.

I plan to offer amendments this week to remove political influence rather than increase it. I am considering an amendment that would disqualify commission members from serving if they make political contributions to the Governor. That would decrease the amount of "political" influence that is required to be a commission member.

Here are the links:

Here is the link to Protect Justice website of the Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts. The starting point for anyone getting up to speed on the issue.

Here is the link to Justice at Stake Justice at Stake a national organization supporting an independent judiciary and their view of Missouri.

Here is the link to the Missouri Law Institute a not-for-profit formed to promote awareness of the State's judicial system.

Daubert and the destruction of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act stalled

Here is the link that would impose Daubert and essentially destroy Chapter 407 - Missouri Merchandising Practices Act - seems stalled for the moment. If you like Daubert and hate consumers you will love this bill.

Here is the link to watch the bill.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve. State Rep John Burnett