How Supreme Court justices are elected in Kansas should stay the same

Should registered voters in Kansas elect justices directly to the state’s Supreme Court?

Or should the current system, involving a Kansas Supreme Court Nomi­nating Com­mission, and the governor’s ultimate appointment, remain in place as it has  since 1958?

That’s the question that Kansas voters in the Tuesday, Aug. 4 primary elec­tion will be asked to decide in the form of a constitutional refer­endum on potential reform of the judicial selection process for the Kansas Supreme Court.

All Kansas registered voters, regardless of po­litical party, are invited to vote on this constitutional referendum, it was reported.

If the referendum passes, Kansas will return to a process of direct elections of Supreme Court justices, in place for the first 100 years of Kansas’ statehood.

If it does not pass, the current merit-based method of nomination by the Kansas Supreme Court Nomi­nating Com­mission, and ultimate appointment by the governor, would remain in place as it has for 68 years - since 1958.

Kansas is the only state in the U.S. with “bar-controlled” selec­tion of state Supreme Court justices, in which a commission largely made up of attorneys elected by the state bar reviews candidates for justices, then selects three candi­dates for the governor to consider.

The governor must then select one of the three candidates nominated to serve as jus­tice; if the governor declines, the Chief Justice of the court makes the appointment.

After serving for one year, jus­tices on the Kansas Supreme Court then face a statewide yes/no retention vote at election time by registered voters, and then again every six years.

In summary, Kansas voters get to vote on whether to retain Supreme Court justices, but the governor - with the help of a nominating commission - gets to appoint them.

Interestingly enough, no Kansas Supreme Court jus­tices have ever been removed as a result of retention votes since 1958, it was reported.

That’s quite a record that provides reason to keep the status quo.

Of the four states that neighbor Kansas, only one — Colorado — has its supreme court justice selec­tion controlled by a governor-con­trolled nomination commission, while the other three — Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma — have a “hybrid selection” process, meaning there is no single group in control of selection.

A total of 21 states have elec­tions for their supreme court jus­tices, 13 of them using nonpartisan elections while eight use partisan elections.

Supporters of the Kansas refer­endum claim that if it passes in the August primary, Kansas vot­ers would be allowed to elect jus­tices by nonpartisan election.

Amendment opponents stated on kansascourtfacts.com, a website opposed to the amendment, that al­lowing the selection process to go back to a public vote would en­courage “billionaire political donors” and special interests to in­fluence who sits on the state supreme court, while leaving the process as is will continue to allow the selection of qualified, fair jus­tices who rule based on the Kansas and U.S. constitutions.

The amendment’s supporters, however, have labeled members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission as “a small group of insiders” involved in “backroom deals,” according to information listed on righttovoteks.com, a web­site in support of the amendment.

The minimum requirements to serve as a Supreme Court justice in Kansas are as follows:

*Must be at least 30 years old and under the age of 75. 

*Must be regularly admitted to practice law in the state of Kansas.

*Must have engaged in the active and continuous practice of law for at least 10 years. This experience can include working as a lawyer, a judge of a court of record, or teaching law full-time at an accredited law school.

In Kansas, we’re not looking for people with the minimum requirements to serve on our state’s Supreme Court, however.

We’re looking for the best of the best judges and attorneys.

The current way that Supreme Court justices are selected in Kansas is working fine. Therefore, there’s no reason to change.

In the last 20 years, Kansas governors have granted just 18 pardons. That’s another indication that the Kansas judicial system does not need to be changed.