Print edition: 
A House maneuver to force a vote on how Kansas Court of Appeals judges are chosen may set up a standoff between Republican chairmen this week.
In a last-minute move on Wednesday, the House voted to put its plan for the selection of judges into a bill already passed by the Senate. That maneuver could force the Senate to debate legislation it has so far ignored.
Or it could lead to a tense conference committee pitting two Republican leaders with different views on the issue against each other.
In Kansas, the process of selecting appeals judges begins with a nominating commission — a nine-member panel of which five are lawyers selected by their peers. When a vacancy occurs, the commission picks three candidates in a secret ballot.
From those three, the governor selects the new judge. If the governor declines to choose, the decision defaults to the chief justice of the state Supreme Court.
Some would prefer a process like the selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices. They would have the governor select his preferred candidate, who would then have to be confirmed by the Senate.
The philosophical difference of opinion is pitting Republican against Republican and committee chairman against committee chairman.
The House passed its version of the selection process on Feb. 25 by a 66-53 vote. The bill was referred March 3 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Chairman Sen. Tim Owens, R-Overland Park, has refused to give it a hearing.
"I haven't let it come up in my committee because, frankly, it's a bad bill," Owens said. "This is the first time I've ever not heard a bill because it's a bad bill. But in this case that's what it is."
The push to get the bill heard in the Senate is spearheaded by Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He said he wants the Senate to give consideration to the issue rather than ignore it.
Kinzer's plan is now contained in Senate Bill 83. Because the legislation is in a bill that already passed the Senate, any senator could move to concur with the House amendments, bypassing Owens' committee. A simple majority could then send the bill to Gov. Sam Brownback to be signed into law.
A motion to nonconcur would send the bill to conference committee, where Owens and Kinzer would meet to discuss the bill.
Owens said his view on the legislation will not change should it go to conference committee.
"I feel very strongly that we need to protect the integrity of the process of the selection of the judges," said Owens. "I'm opposed to the politicization
of the selection of judges."
Kinzer contends that the process is already political.
"Is it better to have politically accountable people select and confirm judges in a public process?" Kinzer said. "Or is it better if it's dominated by internal bar politics and gets played out behind closed doors?"
Kinzer said he disagrees with giving one select group — lawyers — a unique power in the process.
"Quite frankly a lot of folks are concerned that Kansas has a process that doesn't give sufficient accountability," Kinzer said. "It's insular and inconsistent with traditional notions of democratic accountability and transparency."
Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, sided with Owens. He said Kansas wouldn't be better served with a process like the federal appointment of Supreme Court justices.
"Why would we want to emulate what they do on the appointment of justices?" Hensley said. "They just get bogged down by partisan issues.
"I'm satisfied that the process we have is good. I think we should not have the Legislature infuse itself in this issue that shouldn't be a political matter."
Appeals court judges serve four-year terms. Following their selection, they must win a vote of retention in the next statewide general election, and every four years after that.
Kinzer said his plan wouldn't alter that process, but he said it doesn't provide enough accountability. He said only in an extreme case of poor performance would a sitting judge be voted out.
