As a lifelong resident of Kansas and attorney licensed to practice for almost 25 years, I encourage you to show up and vote in the primary elections on Aug. 4.
Voters frequently choose not to participate in primary elections, either because they are not affiliated with a party or do not see the primaries as important. This year, that would be mistake.
This year’s primary ballot includes a proposed constitutional amendment. It would change the way our state’s Supreme Court justices are selected. It is likely the most consequential question of the election season.
The proposed amendment would do away with the current constitutional mandate that Kansas Supreme Court justices are chosen through a merit-based selection process and vetted through a nominating commission of both lawyers and non-lawyers from every congressional district in the state. If passed, the amendment would require statewide elections for positions on the state’s highest court. It would turn would-be justices into politicians.
I know a bit about the current selection process. Last year, I was one of 19 applicants that sought to fill a vacancy on the Kansas Court of Appeals. The same sort of nominating commission process that is currently constitutionally required for Supreme Court vacancies was utilized for the Court of Appeals vacancy.
To apply, I had to compile an extensive list of materials about my background for the commission’s review. I answered questionnaires, submitted samples of my legal work to be scrutinized, and provided the commission with contact information not only of others in the legal profession that I have either worked with or litigated against, but also of references that know me from previous work, the community, and my personal life.
The commission not only considered each applicant’s work as a lawyer or judge, but our life experience, community involvement, character, and fitness for a position on the bench. There were two interviews, one of which was open to the public and in front of the entire commission. It was the most thorough job application process I have been through.
The commission then conducted a series of votes to determine the three finalists that they would recommend to the governor for potential appointment. Those three finalists then went through yet another level of scrutiny as the governor vetted the finalists recommended by the commission. The governor ultimately chose one of the three finalists to fill the vacancy.
While I was disappointed not to be chosen as a finalist, I came out of the process not just satisfied, but very confident, that all three of the finalists whose names were submitted to the governor for consideration were qualified for the job.
The proposed amendment would upend that process, a process that helps identify qualified applicants, and replace it with an opportunity for corruption.
If the amendment passes, we will no longer have applicants for open positions on the court. Instead, we will have political candidates, and the candidate that makes the most promises and raises the most money will likely win. It takes a lot of money to run a statewide campaign for office.
Do we really need or want more money influencing state government? Isn’t enough money already flowing into the campaigns of elected officials across the state without adding Supreme Court Justices to the ledger?
Those promoting the amendment to Kansas’ constitution are inviting big money donors and special interest groups to try to buy judicial decisions. Any reasonable person can see that.
People, special interest groups and corporations do not donate thousands of dollars to a candidate’s campaign, or coordinate millions of dollars of political dark money, if they do not think they are buying the result they want.
Is that what we want for Kansas’ judicial system? Do you want to be standing before a panel of justices wondering whether your opponent in the courtroom was a donor to their campaigns?
Do we want justices wrestling with promises made during their campaigns when making decisions about our rights, or would we rather have them considering the correct outcome under the rule of law, unfettered by campaign positions and promises?
When the decision-makers are more concerned about winning their next popularity contest than following the law, it is justice for all of us that will suffer.
Some may point out that the process I described above, the selection process for Court of Appeals judges, differs from the current process for Supreme Court justices in that the Kansas Senate has the opportunity to approve the governor’s appointments to the Court of Appeals. That is true.
And, if the proponents of the amendment were serious about improving the current merit-based selection process for Supreme Court vacancies in some way, I would be happy to engage in thoughtful discussions about ways to do that.
They are not, however, serious about improving the process. This amendment is not about finding the most qualified justices for the Supreme Court. It’s about turning justices into politicians.
Keep the merit-based selection system in place. Keep our Kansas Supreme Court independent and impartial. And, when someone argues that direct elections will make the Court “accountable to the voters,” remind them that under the current system justices are already accountable to the voters.
Every justice on the Court sits for a statewide retention vote after their first year on the bench, and every six years thereafter.
The Aug. 4 amendment is not about giving voters a say or making justices accountable. It’s about trying to buy decisions. Kansans deserve Supreme Court justices that answer to the rule of law and our U.S. and Kansas Constitutions, not donors or political parties. I encourage you to vote “No” on Aug. 4.
Chris Sook, attorney,
Hays