Latest news with #SenateConcurrentResolution1611
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Take it from this retired Kansas judge: An independent bench reinforces justice
A statue representing justice stands at the Kansas Judicial Center, where the Kansas Supreme Court is located, on Feb. 4, 2022. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) This session, the Kansas Legislature voted to send Senate Concurrent Resolution 1611 to voters. This proposed constitutional amendment creates the direct partisan political election of Kansas Supreme Court justices. Such elections would be the death knell of an independent judiciary. I was fortunate to serve as a trial district court judge for two and a half decades. I was faced with making difficult decisions, but also very unpopular ones. The majority of the Legislature sadly confuses the court of law with the court of public opinion. Partisan election of judges conflicts with the very essence of the role of the judiciary. A judge has no constituency. A judge must not be influenced by popular opinion. A judge must not be beholden to a political party or a financial campaign contributor. Surely we can all agree we want our judiciary to be fair, impartial and insulated from outside influence. This distinction of judicial office from legislative and executive positions is recognized by the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct, canon 4. It addresses political activity by a judicial candidate that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary. Rule 4.1 (A)(6) states '(A) judge or judicial candidate shall not, in connection with cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the court.' A judge has no constituency. A judge must not be influenced by popular opinion. A judge must not be beholden to a political party or a financial campaign contributor. – Steven Becker This means no pledges, promises or commitments on gun control, abortion, Medicaid expansion or legalization of cannabis. The Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct explains further the importance of keeping our judiciary above the fray of political campaigns and rhetoric. 'A judge plays a role different from that of a legislator or executive branch official. Rather than making decisions based upon the expressed views or preferences of the electorate, a judge makes decisions based upon the law and the facts of every case. In furtherance of this interest, judges and judicial candidates, must, to the greatest extent possible, be free and appear to be free from political influence and political pressure. … Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject to political influence.' I suggest the ethical veil distinguishing a judicial candidate from a candidate for legislative or executive office is extremely important but extremely thin. While serving as a district court judge, I applied twice for a vacancy on the Kansas Court of Appeals. At the time, the selection process was the merit-based system that we currently have for selecting our Supreme Court justices. My efforts were unsuccessful. After going through the interview process and an aggressive background investigation, I willingly admit that candidates better than I were chosen to be considered for appointment by the governor. The merit-based selection system works and has worked for more than 50 years. The only reason a change to our state constitution is being sought is because the Kansas Supreme Court issued opinions that conflict with the court of public opinion — or the opinion of lawmakers in Topeka. If court decisions are to align with public opinions, I suggest that our public schools would still be segregated. The independence of our judiciary, free from outside political and ideological influence, is a bedrock to our democracy. An independent judiciary is vital to our government's balance of power with checks and balances. Steve Becker served as Reno County district judge for 26 years and served as state representative for the 104th District for three terms. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kansas House endorses plan to elect Supreme Court justices, placing question on August 2026 ballot
Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, during a March 19, 2025, debate in the House defends a plan to rewrite the state constitution so that voters can elect Kansas Supreme Court justices. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Kansas voters will decide next year whether to rewrite the state's constitution to turn the Kansas Supreme Court into an elected office. The House on Wednesday narrowly endorsed a Senate resolution to place the question on the August 2026 ballot, rejecting concerns that the change from a merit-based selection system for justices would result in a more politicized court. Republicans have pursued the change for years in response to rulings that require lawmakers to fully fund public schools and that established a right to terminate a pregnancy. But they defend the change as a way to empower voters. 'They think the voters should have a bigger role in the selection process,' said Rep. Lindsay Vaughn, D-Overland Park, during debate Wednesday. 'To that, I find it ironic that we have chosen to place this constitutional amendment on the ballot of a low-turnout election. And I think that's because that's not what this is really about. This is about injecting politics into our court system.' Vaughn said the inevitable surge in campaign spending for the high court would 'invite misinformation' and that 'justice should not be for sale.' Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, responded: 'We all know elections are not for sale,' which was met with a smattering of laughter from her colleagues. The highest bidder, she pointed out, doesn't win every race. Campaign finance matters, she conceded, but is 'vastly overstated' because voters can evaluate the merit of candidates. And she pointed out that most Kansans, if asked, don't know how justices currently are selected. The House declared an emergency to take final action on Senate Concurrent Resolution 1611 without waiting the customary day between the debate and a vote. The House then approved the resolution by an 84-40 margin, meeting the minimum two-thirds threshold needed for passage. The Senate passed the resolution 27-13 on March 6. In the House, four Republicans joined Democrats in opposition: Rep. Jesse Borjon of Topeka, Rep. Angel Roeser of Manhattan, Rep. Mark Schreiber of Emporia, and Rep. Sean Willcott of Holton. Rep. Adam Smith, a Weskan Republican who chairs the House Taxation Committee, initially voted against the resolution but flipped his vote to ensure it would pass. The current system for selecting Kansas Supreme Court justices emerged from a 1950s political scandal. A nine-member nominating commission reviews applications to fill a vacancy and selects three finalists for the governor to choose from. There is no Senate approval of the governor's pick. The commission members include one lawyer and one nonlawyer from each of the state's four congressional districts, plus an additional lawyer who serves as chair. Kansas bar members elect the lawyers who serve on the commission, and the governor appoints the nonlawyers. Rep. Bob Lewis, a Republican attorney from Garden City, said the voters of Kansas 'threw the baby out with the bathwater' when they installed the system through a constitutional amendment in 1958. He said it was wrong that only lawyers could have input into a majority of the nominating commission members. 'I think it's a rigged system, quite frankly, and it needs to be changed,' Lewis said.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kansas Senate Republicans take up plan to rewrite constitution to elect Supreme Court justices
Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Marla Luckert delivers her State of the Judiciary speech on Jan. 15, 2025, in the House Chamber. House Speaker Dan Hawkins, left, and Senate President Ty Masterson listen to her speech. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Senate Republicans are taking an effort to make the Kansas Supreme Court an elected office, dismantling a decades-old merit-based nomination system for justices that voters put in place after a notorious scandal. The move is largely a response to a high court decision establishing the right to terminate a pregnancy and three decades of court-imposed compliance with a constitutional mandate to provide suitable funding for public schools. If adopted with two-thirds majorities in both the Senate and House, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1611 would place a loaded question before voters on the 2026 general election ballot. The question would ask voters to replace the current nominating commission, 'whose membership consists of a majority of lawyers,' with direct election of justices. The seven justice seats would be divided among the 2028, 2030 and 2032 elections, and terms would last six years. Republicans and special interest groups that align with Republicans favor the change, which they say would shift power from an elitist organization to the people. Opponents raise concerns about reshaping the court through partisan politics and the dark money that dominates political campaigns. 'It's putting politics where they belong,' said Senate President Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican. 'They're going to tell you, 'Oh, it's putting politics in the system.' Politics are in the system. That's the worst kind of politics. It's veiled. It's in the black box, you know, behind the closed door.' Under the current system, the Supreme Court Nominating Commission reviews applications for a vacancy and sends three finalists to the governor, who makes the appointment from those three finalists. The commission members include one lawyer and one nonlawyer from each of the state's four congressional districts, plus an additional lawyer who serves as chair. Kansas Bar Association members elect the lawyers who serve on the commission, and the governor appoints the nonlawyers. The commission considers experience, education, ethics, temperament, community service, impartiality and respect of colleagues when selecting the three nominees to send to the governor. Each justice faces a retention vote in the next general election after appointment, and again every six years. The system was put in place following a 1950s political scandal known as 'the triple play.' Gov. Fred Hall, viewed as liberal Republican for the era, was defeated in the 1956 primary after a single two-year term. Democrat George Docking won in the general election. Chief Justice Bill Smith, a supporter of Hall who was prepared to retire, decided to step down before Docking took office so that Hall could resign and take his seat. Smith and Hall resigned on the same day, allowing Lt. Gov. John McCuish to be sworn in as governor and appoint Hall to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Hall resigned from the court the following year so he could run again for governor, but again lost in the GOP primary. During the 1957 session, the Legislature passed a constitutional amendment that established the current merit-based system. About 70% of voters approved the constitutional amendment in 1958. In recent years, Republicans scrutinized the system in frustration over Kansas Supreme Court decisions that require the Legislature to adequately and equitably fund public schools. The 2019 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, and voters' rejection of a constitutional amendment on abortion in 2022, fueled renewed interest in abolishing the merit-based system for nominating Supreme Court justices. But Republicans haven't been able to agree on whether to support the election of justices or adopt the federal model, where high court appointments are subject to Senate confirmation. In a hearing Tuesday before the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee, attorney Josh Ney noted that no Supreme Court justice in the past 22 years had retired while a Republican was governor. Democratic governors have selected all but one of the justices during that period, with Republican Gov. Sam Brownback appointing his chief counsel, Caleb Steagall, to the court to fill a vacancy by a justice who was appointed to a federal court seat. 'We have traded the triple play for systemic double plays,' Ney said. Fred Logan, who appeared before the committee on behalf of the Kansas Bar Association, said Kansas voters 'knew exactly what they were doing in 1958 when they installed the merit selection process.' He pointed to the fact that no justice has lost a retention vote as evidence that the process works. 'I trust Kansas voters,' Logan said. Blake Shuart, an attorney with the Wichita-based Hutton Law Firm, said lawyers in the state want to protect a system that has served their clients well, win or lose. In the past year, Shuart said, the Kansas Supreme Court has issued decisions on 31 criminal cases, seven attorney discipline matters, three individuals who were seeking compensation for wrongful conviction, and cases dealing with parentage, tax valuations, a zoning code, a gambling license, a public nuisance issue between two farmers, and other matters. 'This is not a day in, day out job by our justices to press the lever on state politics, decide elections, school funding, reproductive rights, or any other things,' Shuart said. 'Those cases do come around every so often, but what they do every day, week and month of the year, is roll up their sleeves, read briefs, learn cases, ask good questions, listen to good lawyers, argue, deliberate, decide cases fairly based on even-handed application of the facts to the law, and then they sit down and have to write a long opinion.' Rashane Hamby, policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, said the proposed resolution would inject politics into the courts and erode public trust in the judiciary. The change would threaten the rule of law, weaken separation of powers, and allow special interests to influence the highest court. 'The Supreme Court should not be for sale to the highest bidder,' Hamby said. 'If this passes, it will be a radical departure from Kansas' longstanding commitment to judicial independence.' Sen. Caryn Tyson, a Parker Republican, said justices in the past have run TV ads supporting a retention vote, which means money is already a factor. The ads she referenced were actually paid for and produced by entities that support the justices, not the justices themselves. Logan, who has practiced law for 48 years, told Tyson the limited ads she had seen would be amplified with 'huge sums of money' if justices were elected. 'Let's not kid ourselves,' Logan said.
