The Kansas Supreme Court supported the separation of powers of the Kansas government in a ruling issued today that struck down a Kansas law affecting the way chief district judges are chosen.
The law struck down had been passed by the Kansas Legislature in 2014 and stated that district administrative judges would be chosen by an election of the other judges in the district, rather than by the Supreme Court.
The law was challenged by District Judge Larry T. Solomon of the 30th Judicial District.
“The Kansas Supreme Court has the authority and duty to preserve the constitutional division of powers against disruptive intrusion by one branch of government into the sphere of a coordinate branch of government,” the Kansas Supreme Court opinion stated today.
“The Kansas Supreme Court’s general administrative authority includes the power to promulgate and enforce reasonable rules regulating judicial administration and court procedure as necessary for the administration of justice,” the opinion stated.
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt had earlier asked all Supreme Court justices to step aside from hearing this case. Chief Justice Lawton Nuss did step aside, but not the other justices. Nuss had made public statements about the law previously. In a news release earlier this month, Schmidt said the other justices had made assurances that they were not involved with the public statements.
In its opinion today, the court quoted from the Kansas Constitution and its amendments.
“The history and context of the 1972 amendment to Article 3, Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution show that the Supreme Court’s general administrative authority includes the power to make rules for process, practice, and procedure at all levels of the unified court system,” the Kansas Supreme Court stated in today’s ruling. “The written Constitution of Kansas is paramount law because it emanates directly from the people.”
That 1972 amendment, passed by the voters, stated that “The supreme court shall have general administrative authority over all courts in this state.”
Questions also have been raised about funding of the Supreme Court by the Kansas Legislature.
Schmidt issued a response after the decision:
“Today’s decision makes clear the Supreme Court’s conclusion that 2014 HB 2338 is unconstitutional and, because of the district court’s decision to enforce the nonseverability clause, is unenforceable in its entirety. Under our system of government, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of the Kansas Constitution. The statute is void.
“A separate 2015 statute that purports to condition all judicial branch funding on the outcome of this case is on hold and unenforceable by separate court order until at least March 15, 2016. The Kansas Constitution plainly forbids the complete defunding of the judiciary, and as I have said before, I do not think that was the intended result of the Legislature. Therefore, in light of today’s decision, I again recommend the Legislature act before March 15 to sever the connection between funding for the judicial branch and today’s Supreme Court decision.
“While the outcome in today’s case was unanimous, the reasoning of the Justices was not,” Schmidt wrote. “For those who think the structures of our government are themselves vital bulwarks of liberty, the reasoning of Justice Stegall’s concurring opinion offered some degree of hope that the court’s separation-of-powers jurisprudence may someday become more principled and consistent.”
To read today’s Solomon v. State of Kansas decision, visit www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2015/20151223/114573.pdf.