U.S. Senate confirms Ketanji Brown Jackson, ‘America at its best,’ to Supreme Court

by Jennifer Shutt, Kansas Reflector

Washington — Ketanji Brown Jackson will make history by becoming the first Black woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, after Democratic and Republican senators voted Thursday to confirm her to the lifetime appointment.

The 53-47 vote comes just six weeks after President Joe Biden announced his nomination of Jackson from the White House, fulfilling a promise he first made on the campaign trail.

“For too long, our government, our courts haven’t looked like America,” Biden said at the time. “I believe it’s time that we have a Court that reflects the full talents and greatness of our nation with a nominee of qualifications, and that will inspire all young people to believe that they can one day serve their country at the highest level.”

According to the White House, Jackson joined Biden and other senior staff in the Roosevelt Room to watch the vote results.

The momentous nature of Jackson’s confirmation was visible throughout the Senate chamber. Senators stayed at their desks on the floor for much of the vote and dozens of U.S. House members, including the Congressional Black Caucus, gathered to watch.

Vice President Kamala Harris presided over the Senate vote even though she wasn’t needed to break a tie, since Jackson won over the support of three Republicans: Maine’s Susan Collins, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Utah’s Mitt Romney.

After Harris called the vote, the Senate chamber erupted into a standing ovation. While most of the Republican senators filed out of the Senate, Democratic lawmakers cheered as staff packing the benches around the Senate floor and most of the seats in the gallery clapped.

Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said before the vote that “Ketanji Brown Jackson’s improbable journey to the nation’s highest court is a reflection of our own journey through fits and starts toward the nation’s highest ideals.”

“She embodies the arc of our history,” Warnock continued. “She is America at its best. That I believe in my heart after meeting with her in my office, talking to folks who I trust who know her and hearing her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

Iowa GOP Sen. Charles Grassley said he would vote against Jackson, in part, because of her “lenient approach to criminal law and sentencing” and “judicial activism.”

“Her record clearly shows she does not believe in or act within the limited and proper role of a judge, so I will vote against her confirmation,” said Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which split 11-11 on her nomination.

The three Republicans who backed Jackson on the floor said she was well qualified to become an associate justice, though Collins and Murkowski added their support for her was also meant to reject how partisan the Supreme Court confirmation process has become.

“In my view, the role the Constitution clearly assigns to the Senate is to examine the experience, qualifications, and integrity of the nominee,” Collins said in a statement. “It is not to assess whether a nominee reflects the ideology of an individual Senator or would rule exactly as an individual Senator would want.”

Jackson will be sworn in later this year to fill Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s seat after he retires this summer. She will not change the 6-3 conservative tilt of the court.

Hawley and Blackburn questioning

The Thursday vote followed a particularly grueling confirmation process for Jackson in the Judiciary Committee.

Numerous Republican senators, including Missouri’s Josh Hawley and Tennessee’s Marsha Blackburn, grilled Jackson during her first and second days of questioning during the four-day confirmation hearing.

Republicans brought up numerous concerns with Jackson, including her time as a federal public defender and how she sentenced some of the cases that came before her when she was a U.S. district court judge.

Hawley spent nearly all of his time questioning Jackson on seven cases in which she sentenced people convicted of possession of child pornography, alleging that she should have required more prison time.

Blackburn also focused on those cases, but asked additional questions about how Jackson would define a woman and abortion.

Democrats rebuked some of the Republican questioning, saying data proved Jackson’s sentencing in child pornography cases was in line with the vast majority of other judges and that trying to imply she was “soft on crime” was political.

“The overwhelming majority of Senators on both sides I thought were asking appropriate questions and positive in their approach and respectful of the nominee before us,” Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said during the second day of questioning. “But for many senators, yesterday was an opportunity to showcase talking points for the November election.”

From Miami to the high court

Jackson’s path to the U.S. Supreme Court has been decades in the making.

Jackson, who was born in Washington, D.C., but grew up in Miami, testified at her confirmation hearing that one of her earliest memories was watching her father study law.

“My very earliest memories are of watching my father study. He had his stack of law books on the kitchen table while I sat across from him with my stack of coloring books,”

Jackson said last month on the first day of her confirmation hearing.

Jackson went on to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1992 and Harvard Law School cum laude in 1996.

She later clerked for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit and for Breyer.

Jackson worked in private practice before joining the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2003. She became a federal public defender in 2005 before being confirmed as a U.S. district court judge in 2007.

The U.S. Senate voted on Jackson just last year, confirming her 53-44 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham joined Collins and Murkowski in backing her for that role.

Jackson received dozens of endorsements for her nomination to the Supreme Court, including from the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the National Education Association.

The American Bar Association rated Jackson’s as “highly qualified.”

Wrapping up the Senate floor debate on Thursday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, said Jackson becoming an associate justice would take a “bold and important step on the well trodden path to fulfilling our country’s founding promise.”

“This is a great moment for Judge Jackson, but it is even a greater moment for America as we rise to a more perfect union,” Schumer said.

Kansas Reflector stories, www.kansasreflector.com, may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

See more at https://kansasreflector.com/2022/04/07/u-s-senate-confirms-ketanji-brown-jackson-america-at-its-best-to-supreme-court/.

Kansas Supreme Court works to clarify state law for lawsuit filed by former KHP colonel

U.S. judge asks for help sorting through statute called ‘not a model of clarity’

by Tim Carpenter, Kansas Reflector

Topeka — Former Kansas Highway Patrol Col. Mark Bruce’s attorney went before the Kansas Supreme Court to argue state law required his client’s return to the rank of major instead of being ousted three years ago amid a domestic-violence scandal involving the agency’s lieutenant colonel.

A lawyer representing Gov. Laura Kelly; Will Lawrence, the governor’s chief of staff; and KHP Col. Herman Jones argued the claims by Bruce in a lawsuit lacked merit because he voluntarily signed resignation and retirement papers after being informed his services were no longer needed in the Kelly administration. In addition, the governor’s attorney said Bruce was misinterpreting state employment law.

A U.S. District Court judge handling the Bruce lawsuit against Kelly, Lawrence and Jones said he was so perplexed by the applicable Kansas law — “not a model of clarity” — that he took the unusual step of requesting the state Supreme Court resolve disputes about interpretation of the state statute. The analysis could include work to understand intent of the Legislature when it tinkered with the Kansas Civil Service Act in 2018.

State Supreme Court Justice Dan Biles said during oral argument Wednesday night in Great Bend that Kansas law on this point was so garbled the state’s highest court would have to enter the “minefield” of legislative intent to figure out what lawmakers attempted to achieve.

He said Topeka attorney Alan Johnson, who represented Bruce, and Topeka attorney David Cooper, who represented the three defendants, were struggling with the poorly articulated statute.

“This is the biggest mess of statutes that I can remember. This just doesn’t make sense,” said Biles, who was appointed to the court in 2009. “Aren’t we just stuck with legislative history?”

In March 2019, Bruce was told by Lawrence that he would need to step down as KHP superintendent. He complied with that directive and retired from the Kansas law enforcement agency after 30 years of service.

The motivation for the move was an allegation Bruce improperly used his authority at KHP to shield the second in command, Lt. Col. Randy Moon, who was investigated for a 2018 assault of a woman at a hotel in Excelsior Springs, Missouri. Moon left the highway patrol along with Bruce.

Bruce’s lawsuit in federal court asserted Kansas law required Bruce to be returned to the rank of KHP major if removed as superintendent of the law enforcement agency. Johnson, his attorney, claimed the Kelly administration caused Bruce’s “constructive discharge from employment” by denying him what amounted to a property interest in that job without due process.

In response, Cooper said the Kelly administration considered the job of KHP colonel, lieutenant colonel and major to be unclassified, or at-will, positions in which employees served at the pleasure of the governor. Unclassified personnel in state government can be dismissed at any time.

Bruce’s theory that he was entitled to employment at the rank of major with permanent status in the classified service “cannot withstand scrutiny,” Cooper said.

If KHP majors were found to be part of the classified employee system, Cooper said, Bruce would be obligated by state law to complete a six-month probationary period after transitioning to the rank of major. During that probation, KHP leadership would have the authority to dismiss Bruce. Johnson said his client shouldn’t have to be part of the probationary system.

Bruce was hired by KHP in 1989 and promoted to major in 2008. Gov. Sam Brownback selected Bruce to be superintendent of the agency in 2015. Three years later, Kelly was elected governor. She retained Bruce as the KHP’s commander.

But in March 2019, Bruce was summoned to Lawrence’s office and told he would be replaced as colonel of KHP. He officially resigned in April and retired in May of that year.

Johnson, Bruce’s attorney, told the Supreme Court that all KHP majors became eligible for higher salaries in 2016 if they surrendered their civil service job protections to become unclassified state workers. He said an individual major accepting that offer of a pay raise in exchange for giving up job protections of classified state workers didn’t mean others serving as a major, such as Bruce, would be considered unclassified employees.

In 2018, Bruce lobbied for the Legislature to pass a bill to prevent dismissal of majors unless a civil service hearing affirmed the decision. The resulting state statute was written in a way that was open to disagreement and a puzzle to federal and state courts.

Kansas Reflector stories, www.kansasreflector.com, may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

See more at https://kansasreflector.com/2022/04/07/kansas-supreme-court-works-to-clarify-state-law-for-lawsuit-filed-by-former-khp-colonel/

Kansas gerrymandering trial in Wyandotte County is almost over. Here are the takeaways

Experts argue that analysis shows racial and political gerrymandering, while the defense says there’s no way to prove it.

by Dylan Lysen, KCUR and Kansas News Service

Kansas City, Kansas — A trial in state court challenging the recently drawn Kansas congressional map is soon coming to a close after several days of arguments over whether state lawmakers crafted districts to benefit Republican candidates.

Civil rights groups and some residents want the map thrown out because it waters down the influence of people of color by splitting Wyandotte County into separate districts, and because it lumps heavily Democratic Lawrence in a Republican-dominated district.

The challengers spent the first three days of the trial this week providing expert testimony and evidence to bolster their case. Meanwhile the attorneys defending the map have argued that the case should be dismissed.

One more day of testimony is expected on Monday, and then the case will be in the hands of Judge Bill Klapper. He is expected to issue a ruling within 10 days.

Regardless of which way he decides to rule, it will be historic. The Kansas judicial system has never before considered political or racial gerrymandering, and the case is believed to be on its way to a landmark ruling.

With a majority of the testimony heard by the court, here’s some major takeaways from the proceedings so far:

Experts argue political and racial gerrymandering

Political scientist Christopher Warshaw of George Washington University showed the court his statistical analysis of Kansas’ new districts. He said it showed the changes to Wyandotte County and Lawrence cut the chances of a Democratic candidate winning a Kansas seat to the U.S. House nearly in half.

Then Patrick Miller of the University of Kansas presented data showing the most racially diverse portion of Wyandotte County was cut out of the 3rd District, which represents the Kansas City area, into the 2nd District that represents most of eastern Kansas and favors Republicans.

He called that change “disastrous” for the people of color in Wyandotte County because it makes their votes “basically irrelevant.”

Defense says there’s no way to prove gerrymandering

After the plaintiffs finished presenting testimony, attorneys for the state asked the judge to dismiss the case for a lack of evidence.

The defense argued that there is no standard in Kansas to prove what is or isn’t gerrymandering and the challengers could not prove a state law was broken. The judge denied the request.

Judge calls evidence ‘overwhelming’

In his denial, Klapper signaled he believed that the plaintiffs had presented “overwhelming” evidence that the new districts result in political and racial gerrymandering. But he said the question of the trial is whether that means the map is a violation of the state constitution.

He said the plaintiffs presented testimony from several political scientists who all used different statistical tests that came to the same conclusion — the new state congressional maps are a result of racial and political gerrymandering.

The case is heading to the Kansas Supreme Court

At one point in the proceedings, Klapper acknowledged the case was destined to be heard by the state’s highest court.

He called the case a “vehicle to get to the Supreme Court” where the justices will make a final ruling on whether gerrymandering is allowed under the Kansas Constitution.

Dylan Lysen reports on politics for the Kansas News Service. You can follow him on Twitter @DylanLysen or email him at dlysen (at) kcur (dot) org.
The Kansas News Service is a collaboration of KCUR, Kansas Public Radio, KMUW and High Plains Public Radio focused on health, the social determinants of health and their connection to public policy.
Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished by news media at no cost with proper attribution and a link to ksnewsservice.org.
See more at https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-04-07/the-kansas-gerrymandering-trial-in-wyandotte-county-is-almost-over-here-are-the-takeaways