JEFFERSON CITY — Sen. Rick Brattin is calling for a change to the Missouri Supreme Court following its decision to strike down a law giving the secretary of state and attorney general increased powers.
Brattin, R-Harrisonville, took to Facebook Saturday and to the Senate floor Wednesday to voice his concerns with the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Senate Bill 22, passed last year. On Wednesday, Brattin and other Senate Republicans filibustered for over an hour to delay the State of the Judiciary address.
The address, originally scheduled for Wednesday, was canceled as a result of the filibuster.
“I call all my colleagues in both chambers to do what we can to rein in an out of control court,” said Sen. Joe Nicola, R-Grain Valley. “We cannot allow this to stand, if we want to protect the freedom and liberty of our constituents.”
SB 22 was passed into law last year after being introduced by Brattin. The law gave the secretary of state the authority to rewrite ballot language during legal challenges, a responsibility previously held by judges.
The bill granted the secretary of state three attempts to rewrite ballot language when a judge has determined that the submitted language does not accurately reflect the question being put to voters.
The bill also gave the attorney general the ability to appeal temporary restraining orders issued by Circuit Court judges. That power was seen by legislators as an opportunity to continue to uphold state laws that restrict abortion access despite voter approval of Amendment 3, ensuring reproductive rights in November 2024.
The bill was struck down on Friday because it changed too much from its original purpose, according to Chief Justice W. Brent Powell’s unanimous decision.
Brattin called out many problems he sees in the judicial branch via a video on Facebook on Saturday. Brattin emphasized during the video that he believes the courts don’t have a constitutional right to change ballot language.
“Go read the Federalist Papers, which laid out our constitutional republic and the powers of each branch,” Brattin said in the video. “They explicitly said that, first off, the judiciary was supposed to be the lesser of all the branches because ... they have no power amongst themselves and they have no power to legislate.”
“Well, if they’re rewriting ballot language to how they see fit, that is legislating from the bench,” he added.
Brattin said that the law he introduced last year was meant to stop judges from writing legislation. In his video, Brattin said the courts are “elitist” and that he would look for ways to balance the power between the branches of government.
“If these Supreme Court justices want to act like they’re legislators, then I just find it fitting that we need to equal the pay to ensure they’re getting paid like us legislators,” Brattin said. “We get paid about $40,000 a year, and they get, I think, it’s $240,000 a year, roughly.”
Brattin also criticized the Supreme Court selection process. Nominees for the court are interviewed and have their application reviewed by a nonpartisan panel, which makes recommendations for appointees to the governor.
The panel includes three citizens selected by the governor, the Supreme Court’s chief justice and three lawyers elected by the lawyers of The Missouri Bar. Brattin said lawyers selected by the bar often sway the committee to recommend liberal justices. Appointments are made by the governor.
“So, it doesn’t matter how ruby red this state is,” Brattin said in the video. “You’re getting the most liberal judges put up by the Missouri Bar Association behind closed doors in the dark of night.”
Brattin said he would be looking for ways to change the model in the future.
The senator was unable to be reached for comment on Tuesday but provided the Missourian with a statement arguing that the Supreme Court threw out the law because it limited the court’s authority.
“SB 22 limited the power of judges and gave it back to the people’s elected representatives, who are accountable to the voters,” Brattin said in the statement.
“The Court did not like that, so they came up with a reason to kill the bill,” he said. “Courts are supposed to interpret the law, not protect their own power.”
Anika Austvold Sawyer Bess contributed to this report.