Opinion ID: 2276320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: introduction

Text: I concur in the principal opinion. I write separately to point out that there is no constitutional authority for the current officers called commissioners. The assignment of judicial powers in the Missouri Constitution solely to judges is unambiguous and mandatory. The Court has a duty to respect the constitutional assignment of judicial powers, and, as gently as possible, to phase out these positions as these officers end their service and to seek their replacement with judges as needed. Commissioner Finnegan is one of 37 [1] persons whose commissioner positions have been created by legislation since 1976  when the voters adopted the modern judicial framework in article V of the Missouri Constitution. These commissioners perform important functions for the people of the state. Some conduct family court proceedings, some handle probate matters and others conduct drug court or similar dockets. Commissioners preside over some innovative and important judicial proceedings. They all appear to be highly qualified and capable of doing the work the legislation assigns to them. They function, in nearly all respects, as judges. But they are not judges. Article V is clear. It defines who is in the judiciary, and it establishes clear rules for the judiciary. Mo. Const. art. V, secs. 14-23 (amended in 1976). There is nothing wrong with calling someone a commissioner. Nor is there anything wrong with assigning special duties to those called commissioners. But, under the Missouri Constitution, to exercise judicial functions, they first must be judges selected in accordance with our constitution.