Process for picking justices works well

Kansans need the sharpest legal minds in the state sitting on the Kansas Supreme Court, and jurists so focused on the rule of law that they pay no heed to popular opinion or political threats.

Yet merit was barely mentioned leading up to Wednesday’s 69-53 preliminary House vote favoring a judicial selection constitutional amendment. That’s one of many reasons to hope the tally won’t tip toward the two-thirds majority needed for approval in final action on HCR 5005.

Disrespectfully timed to up-stage the annual State of the Judiciary address of Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, the frustrating debate was full of dueling claims about the status quo and the proposed change, as well as lofty-sounding arguments that seemed to skirt the real motivations behind the renewed effort to alter how Supreme Court justices are chosen.

Every once in a while, though, the fog cleared:

Such as when lawmakers referred to disappointment in appellate court rulings on the death penalty, abortion and school funding.

Such as when Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, recalled how Gov. Sam Brownback said (in 2012, according to the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman at the time) that he wanted to “change the way we select judges so we can get judges who will vote the way we want them to.”

And such as when anti-abortion Rep. Larry Hibbard, R-Toronto, decried a pre-vote e-mail he received from an anti-abortion group promising consequences for voting “no” (which he did, to his credit).

Would it be the end of the world if Kansas changed its constitution to abolish the geographically balanced Supreme Court nominating commission, which vets the applicants and forwards three names to the governor, and instead allow the governor to appoint justices unilaterally, subject to Kansas Senate confirmation? No.

But the case for rewriting the constitution after nearly 60 years remains weak.

And Wednesday confirmed again that this multiyear push, renewed in Brownback’s State of the State address, is not about seeking a more impartial, independent and capable judiciary, nor about the supposed greatness of the “federal model” or some urgent need to “let the people decide” how justices are chosen.

“It’s because we don’t like some of the court rulings.... I don’t think that is grounds to change judicial selection,” said Rep. Steven Becker, R-Buhler, a retired judge.

It isn’t. Becker and his fellow House members of both parties who see this issue for what it is should stand strong, and behind a 60-year-old process for choosing Supreme Court justices that has served the state well.

This story was originally published February 3, 2016 at 6:07 PM with the headline "Process for picking justices works well."