Latest news with #FredHall
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maybe it's time the Kansas Legislature let us vote on what we want to vote on
It's not often the people of Kansas get to hold a 'referendum' on state legislation. In fact, they can't. At least not on their own. Under our state's constitution, we operate a representative democracy electing legislators to make decisions on our behalf and ultimately hold them accountable every 2-4 years. This indirect democracy can be viewed as a paternalistic relationship between electeds and electorate — a reassuring pat on the head from politicians that lawmaking is their province, and they will call us when needed. So any time our Legislature agrees to offer us a chance at direct power on one issue, we should stand up and take note. And any time our Legislature agrees to offer us a chance at direct power forever, we should stand up, take note, and run as fast as we can to our polling place before they change their minds. Which is why we should really take notice of what the conservative-controlled Legislature did last week when the required two-thirds majority passed SCR 1611. It's a proposed constitutional amendment asking voters on Aug. 4, 2026, if we should elect (not just retain) our seven Supreme Court justices. Not only do we get invited to dinner, but it's a permanent invite and we get to buy the groceries! That is not to say electing the Supreme Court is totally advisable. On its face, SCR 1611 is a de facto 'referendum' on the current merit-based selection process controlled by bar-appointed lawyers and governor-appointed citizens. Passed by 70% of the electorate in 1958 after Gov. Fred Hall's infamous triple-play scandal, the system was enacted to keep Supreme Court selections free of corruption, moneyed interests, and political bosses. But if you use your sunflower-colored glasses and squint through the Oz dust of debate, you might also see a glimmer of hope . . . direct democracy! Today, 26 states provide for some form of direct, or pure, democracy that bypass legislatures with citizen-initiated ballot measures for new laws (initiatives) and/or vetoes (referendums) through collection of signatures (petitions). Laws without lawmakers. Sadly, Kansas does not allow that; Gov. Joan Finney was the last to earnestly push the issue in the early 1990s. Technically, SCR 1611 is not direct democracy either, but it's close. It has no citizen-initiated lawmaking. But citizens gain a direct line to pick justices who enforce the biggest law (Kansas Constitution) and the weightiest legal question of our time (women's right to an abortion). So why stop there? The Kansas Constitution already allows citizen-initiated ballot measures for cities, counties and school districts. All adjoining states — Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Oklahoma — allow it. Sixty-four percent of states with part-time 'citizen' legislatures, like Kansas, allow it. Most of all, big issues supported by a majority of Kansans but ignored by legislative leadership — Medicaid expansion (72%), recreational marijuana (65%), a women's right to choose (65%), assault weapon bans (55%) — could be put to a vote of the people, once and for all. Even Senate President Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican and expected 2026 gubernatorial candidate who led the charge for SCR 1611, believes 'it's time to give the people the opportunity to assume that power and tear down firewalls and shine the light of democracy we all claim to support.' I couldn't agree more. If legislative leaders are truly ingenuous about tearing down judiciary firewalls for the people, their own firewalls should be next. Bill Fiander is a lecturer at Washburn University specializing in public administration, urban planning, and state/local government. He is the former planning and development director for the City of Topeka
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kansans to vote on constitutional amendment to directly elect state Supreme Court
Kansas lawmakers voted to change how Kansas appoints its Supreme Court nominations from a commission-led process to direct elections. Currently, the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission provides the governor three potential judges, from which the governor selects. The commission is made up of one lawyer from each of Kansas's congressional districts, one non-lawyer from each congressional district and one at-large lawyer to chair the commission. Merit-based selection, also called the Missouri Plan, is used in 14 states, including all of Kansas's neighboring states. Justices in 21 states are elected, but only seven of those use partisan elections. Kansas adopted the Missouri plan in the 1950s after a scheme to implement then-Gov. Fred Hall to the Kansas Supreme Court to block an appointment by Democratic Gov.-elect George Docking. Prior to that, Kansas directly elected justices, but governors could appoint a justice if a seat was vacated. Kansas Republicans have said the direct election of justices returns voting power to the people of Kansas. 'We're going back to allowing people to elect and select their justices. We already do this at the county-level in many counties here in the state of Kansas,' said Speaker Pro Tem Blake Carpenter, R-Derby. 'It's a model that works, and it's a model that works well. And so we are looking at giving people the power to be able to select their end of their individual justices.' But opponents say the change in the judicial selection process is more related to partisan politics after the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion rights and mandated school funding. Constitutional amendments require supermajority support in both chambers, which it achieved but just barely. In both the House and Senate, the resolution passed with exactly two-thirds support. Republicans have been divided on judicial selection in the past, with some favoring the federal model of executive nomination and Senate confirmation. 'We still had quite a few people saying, 'I want the federal model.' Well, the Federal model is not up for grabs right now. And quite frankly, the Federal model, I'm not sure that we could actually get the votes in the House and the Senate to do the federal model, we can get the votes for the direct election, and we're there now,' Hawkins said. Kansans will vote on the proposed change to judicial selection in a special election Aug. 4, 2026. The ballot language doesn't directly state that the elections will be partisan, but it does remove prohibitions of Kansas Supreme Court Justices from contributing to or holding office in a political party. The bill is opposed by several different organizations that represent the legal profession, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Kansas Organization of State Employees and Planned Parenthood of the Great Plains. 'This new system has been in place for 70 years now, and it works,' said Rep. Dan Osman, D-Overland Park. Opponents said direct election injects partisan politics into the judicial system and some have suggested it's aimed is to change the makeup of the court to make it more favorable to anti-abortion challenges. Some also pointed out that judges do face retention elections, but only one judge in Kansas history was removed via a retention election. Democrats said direct elections could lead to large sums of money into judicial elections, and pointed to Wisconsin where more than $100 million has been spent on campaigns for its Supreme Court candidates. There are also cases of judicial gridlock that Democrats said stemmed from partisan election of justices. This article originally appeared on Topeka Capital-Journal: Kansas moves to directly elect Supreme Court justices
