Kansas Supreme Court selection change dies in House

TOPEKA — The Kansas House failed to pass a constitutional amendment to change how state Supreme Court justices are chosen.

Thursday’s 68-54 vote did not reach the two-thirds majority needed to send the measure to the Senate. It came a day after 69 representatives voted for the amendment on an initial vote.

HCR 5005 would have given Gov. Sam Brownback and future governors the power to nominate Supreme Court justices. The Kansas Senate would confirm the nominees, a process similar to the way U.S. Supreme Court justices are nominated.

“I support giving the people of Kansas a chance to vote on adopting the federal model,” said Rep. James Todd, R-Overland Park, who brought the resolution to the floor.

The current system, which relies on a nominating commission chosen by the governor and the state’s licensed lawyers, will stay in place.

Supporters of the amendment have called the current Supreme Court selection system undemocratic and secretive. Some Republican lawmakers have become increasingly frustrated with the state’s judicial system, accusing judges of being out of touch with Kansans.

“It merely allows Kansas voters to decide if they wish to keep the current system or change to one that’s more democratic,” said Rep. Virgil Peck, R-Tyro.

Opponents have called the effort a power grab to select judges who agree with legislators’ views on topics like the death penalty or abortion.

“The proposed constitutional amendment would inject partisan politics into what should be neutral, objective judicial decisions,” said Rep. Tom Burroughs, D-Kansas City.

Brownback and Attorney General Derek Schmidt have called for voters to have a say on the selection system. Chief Justice Lawton Nuss said Wednesday that the selection system was designed to prevent political influence on the high court.

If both houses had signed off on it, the amendment to the Kansas Constitution would have gone before voters in November for approval.

Political implications

House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, shrugged off the bill’s defeat.

“To me it was just another vote,” he said.

Even though the amendment failed to pass, the vote could be a political weapon against representatives who voted against it.

“What we’ve heard from several representatives is that they have been told by interest groups that if they didn’t vote for this that they would no longer be endorsed by them,” said Rep. Blaine Finch, R-Ottawa. “That this is the only vote that mattered.”

The anti-abortion group Kansans for Life told lawmakers in an e-mail this week that a “no” vote was “incompatible” with endorsing representatives for this year’s upcoming election.

Finch said he has heard that the amendment was widely viewed as doomed to fail in the House.

“There’s not been enough votes to pass it any other time that it’s come up,” Finch said.

Merrick dismissed claims that the vote was intended to give conservatives material to attack moderates during the next election. Many political observers have pointed to e-mails from Kansans for Life as proof.

“It’s the bogeyman talk,” Merrick said. “My intent to run this bill was not a ‘gotcha’ vote.”

Bob Beatty, a political scientist at Washburn University, said judicial selection will be a prominent issue during the upcoming election, noting that Brownback aggressively pushed the issue during his successful re-election campaign in 2014.

“We’ve seen it already once. … It wouldn’t be surprising to see it once again,” Beatty said.

This story was originally published February 4, 2016 at 12:07 PM with the headline "Kansas Supreme Court selection change dies in House."