Last week Democrats called a proposed constitutional amendment in the Kansas House a “power grab” by Gov. Sam Brownback.
The amendment, which was defeated, would have changed the way Kansas Supreme Court justices are selected. Currently they are selected by a nonpartisan judicial selection commission made up of members of the legal profession. The proposed method was nomination by the governor and confirmation by the Kansas Senate.
While the proposed method was similar to the way U.S. Supreme Court justices are selected, there are good reasons for Kansas to use the nonpartisan selection commission.
State Rep. Pam Curtis, D-32nd Dist., who voted against the amendment, with the rest of the Wyandotte County Democrats, pointed out the history of this current selection method.
According to a historical account online at the Kansas Historical Society, http://www.kansasmemory.org/item/228731, it happened about 60 years ago, and it was called the political “triple play.”
It happened when the incumbent governor, Fred Hall, was defeated for re-election in 1956. Chief Justice William Smith resigned because of ill health on Dec. 31, 1956, and Hall resigned as governor on Jan. 3, 1957. Lt. Gov. John McCuish then became governor for the remaining 11 days of Hall’s term, and during that short time, he appointed Hall to the Kansas Supreme Court.
The public was outraged over the unethical actions, and the Kansas Legislature approved a constitutional amendment changing the system to nonpartisan judicial selection, which was approved by voters in 1958.
Last week, according to the House Journal, a few legislators explained their votes, saying that they didn’t like the Kansas Supreme Court decision in the Wichita Carr case, or other decisions. Another legislator voted against the amendment, saying that he didn’t like the way that type of judicial selection is working in Washington, D.C., citing rulings he didn’t like. However, we think the state would be better served by selecting the best candidate, one who has a past record of good judicial decisions that follow the law, precedents and the constitution, not those who support a particular cause or political party.
While most of us are too young to remember the political triple play, the lesson should be clear: Voters in 1958 didn’t like insider back-room deals, and voters now wouldn’t like it, either.
The defeat of the proposed amendment last week, which would have allowed the governor to appoint justices, keeps the Kansas Supreme Court judicial selection out of the hands of politics and in the hands of the professionals who are best at evaluating their colleagues’ qualifications.