TO SAFEGUARD COURTS FROM PARTISAN INFLUENCE, A NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL SELECTION PROCESS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE MISSOURI PLAN HAS BEEN WIDELY PROPOSED AND ADOPTED IN THE UNITED STATES. THIS PLAN ESTABLISHES PROCEDURES WHEREBY PROFESSIONAL LEGAL EVALUATIONS ARE MADE A FORMAL PART OF THE EARLY SCREENING PROCESS FOR JUDICIAL CANDIDATES. THE PLAN LIMITS THE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO POLITICAL APPOINTMENT AUTHORITIES. LEGAL LITERATURE AND REFORM PROPOSALS INDICATE THREE BASIC RESULTS THE MISSOURI PLAN IS EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE: (1) REFORMERS ARGUE THAT THE SELECTION PROCESS ITSELF WILL BE VASTLY CHANGED AND IMPROVED; (2) RECRUITMENT ASPECTS OF THE PLAN WILL SHIFT EMPHASIS FROM PARTISAN TO PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR A JUDICIAL OFFICE; AND (3) THE PLAN IS EXPECTED TO RESULT IN SUPERIOR JUDICIAL DECISIONMAKING. DESPITE THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT THE PLAN MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE IN JUDICIAL SELECTION OR IN THE KINDS OF JUDGES CHOSEN, DEBATE OVER THE PLAN'S MERITS AND THE ROLE OF THE PROFESSIONAL BAR IS EXPECTED TO CONTINUE. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (DEP)