Join our Mailing List!
Please click the link below to sign up for your community paper mailing list. Stay up to date with all the events going on in your community as well as the latest news.Sign Up Today!
Don't fool with our courts
BY: Bob Sigman, Opinion Page Editor
Our system of justice in Johnson County is under attack. The assault is from the right – ultraconservatives who want judges committed to rule their way on hot-button issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Abortion politics, in fact, is very much in play here.
Last year, the right-wingers succeeded in petitioning for an election on whether we should keep our nonpartisan plan for selecting judges, which is widely used throughout the country, or elect them in partisan elections. The proposal will be on the ballot in November.
Kansas learned the hard way that partisan election of judges can be badly abused.
Back in the mid-1950s, a political scandal rocked Kansas. The Republican chief justice of the Kansas Supreme Court, who had been selected in a partisan election, resigned. Shortly thereafter the governor, a lame duck, resigned. Then the new governor quickly appointed the former chief executive to the Supreme Court. Kansans felt betrayed, not only by the culprits but by the system they used to execute their coup.
Reaction was swift. Kansas voters switched from partisan judicial elections, in which justices ran under party banners, to the nonpartisan, or merit selection, method of selecting them.
In the late 1970s, counties were offered the option of changing to the nonpartisan model. Johnson Countians readily approved it.
We should learn from this historical background. The elective method was vulnerable to manipulation by dishonest politicians.
The conservatives' motives fly in the face of impartial justice. The courts should not be ruled by judges who have pre-conceived opinions. Each case should be judged fairly on its merits, the evidence and the law.
While any method is subject to abuse, the nonpartisan plan is designed to avoid partisan manipulation, inappropriate pressure on candidates to commit themselves on future judicial rulings, and expensive election campaigns.
Campaign finance is a most troubling factor. Lawyers are among the largest contributors to judicial campaigns. Conflicts of interest can arise when a lawyer who has donated money to a campaign appears before the recipient judge. Even if a conflict does not occur, the contribution leaves the impression that justice is for sale.
Supporters of the nonpartisan plan are gearing up to oppose the change.
“Special interest money in the court system scares me,” said Greg Musil, a lawyer and chair of Johnson Countians for Justice, in an interview last week. It is one of several organizations that oppose the change.
A survey after judicial elections in Sedgwick County, where judges are elected in partisan district court elections, showed that well-financed judges tended to win. In 2000, the candidate who raised the most money won in all but two of seven races. The pattern continued in 2002.
The largest source of contributions other than the candidates, the report said, “was lawyers who would later appear in front of the judges.”
Summed up, money, not qualifications, talks in partisan elections.
A poll of Johnson County Bar Association members showed that more than 97 percent favor retaining the nonpartisan plan, Musil said.
That is understandable. Lawyers want fair, highly qualified judges with the proper temperament to rule on their cases. Whether they contributed to a judge's campaign, or the amount, should not be a factor in the administration of justice.
Nor should judges be beholden to politicians who contribute money or deliver votes for their election.
The nonpartisan plan works this way: When a vacancy on the bench occurs, a nominating commission of citizens and lawyers accepts applications, interviews the applicants and nominates a panel, usually of three individuals. Their names are sent to the governor, who chooses one.
The judge then stands on his/her record for election every four years. That gives the public the opportunity to oust a judge considered unqualified to serve.
Each member of the seven-seat Johnson County Board of County Commissioners appoints one non-lawyer to the nominating commission. The state-licensed lawyers in the county pick a like number. The nonvoting chair of the commission is a justice of the state Supreme Court.
As noted, Kansas turned to the nonpartisan plan after a scandal that was possible under the discredited elective system. We borrowed nonpartisanship from Missouri, which had experienced political interference with its courts under partisan elections.
Enraged Missouri voters conducted a successful initiative petition campaign to place the nonpartisan plan on the ballot in 1940. It was adopted, making Missouri the first state to approve the plan.
By now various forms of the Missouri plan are used in some 35 states. Many have adopted it after bad experiences with partisan elections.
Literally millions of citizens across America see the advantages of removing their courts from the partisans and having nonpartisan judges who have been thoroughly vetted before appointment.
After all, the appointment of judges is rooted deeply in American jurisprudence. It is the only method the Founding Fathers seriously considered.
printable version
e-mail this story
Last year, the right-wingers succeeded in petitioning for an election on whether we should keep our nonpartisan plan for selecting judges, which is widely used throughout the country, or elect them in partisan elections. The proposal will be on the ballot in November.
Kansas learned the hard way that partisan election of judges can be badly abused.
Back in the mid-1950s, a political scandal rocked Kansas. The Republican chief justice of the Kansas Supreme Court, who had been selected in a partisan election, resigned. Shortly thereafter the governor, a lame duck, resigned. Then the new governor quickly appointed the former chief executive to the Supreme Court. Kansans felt betrayed, not only by the culprits but by the system they used to execute their coup.
Reaction was swift. Kansas voters switched from partisan judicial elections, in which justices ran under party banners, to the nonpartisan, or merit selection, method of selecting them.
In the late 1970s, counties were offered the option of changing to the nonpartisan model. Johnson Countians readily approved it.
We should learn from this historical background. The elective method was vulnerable to manipulation by dishonest politicians.
The conservatives' motives fly in the face of impartial justice. The courts should not be ruled by judges who have pre-conceived opinions. Each case should be judged fairly on its merits, the evidence and the law.
While any method is subject to abuse, the nonpartisan plan is designed to avoid partisan manipulation, inappropriate pressure on candidates to commit themselves on future judicial rulings, and expensive election campaigns.
Campaign finance is a most troubling factor. Lawyers are among the largest contributors to judicial campaigns. Conflicts of interest can arise when a lawyer who has donated money to a campaign appears before the recipient judge. Even if a conflict does not occur, the contribution leaves the impression that justice is for sale.
Supporters of the nonpartisan plan are gearing up to oppose the change.
“Special interest money in the court system scares me,” said Greg Musil, a lawyer and chair of Johnson Countians for Justice, in an interview last week. It is one of several organizations that oppose the change.
A survey after judicial elections in Sedgwick County, where judges are elected in partisan district court elections, showed that well-financed judges tended to win. In 2000, the candidate who raised the most money won in all but two of seven races. The pattern continued in 2002.
The largest source of contributions other than the candidates, the report said, “was lawyers who would later appear in front of the judges.”
Summed up, money, not qualifications, talks in partisan elections.
A poll of Johnson County Bar Association members showed that more than 97 percent favor retaining the nonpartisan plan, Musil said.
That is understandable. Lawyers want fair, highly qualified judges with the proper temperament to rule on their cases. Whether they contributed to a judge's campaign, or the amount, should not be a factor in the administration of justice.
Nor should judges be beholden to politicians who contribute money or deliver votes for their election.
The nonpartisan plan works this way: When a vacancy on the bench occurs, a nominating commission of citizens and lawyers accepts applications, interviews the applicants and nominates a panel, usually of three individuals. Their names are sent to the governor, who chooses one.
The judge then stands on his/her record for election every four years. That gives the public the opportunity to oust a judge considered unqualified to serve.
Each member of the seven-seat Johnson County Board of County Commissioners appoints one non-lawyer to the nominating commission. The state-licensed lawyers in the county pick a like number. The nonvoting chair of the commission is a justice of the state Supreme Court.
As noted, Kansas turned to the nonpartisan plan after a scandal that was possible under the discredited elective system. We borrowed nonpartisanship from Missouri, which had experienced political interference with its courts under partisan elections.
Enraged Missouri voters conducted a successful initiative petition campaign to place the nonpartisan plan on the ballot in 1940. It was adopted, making Missouri the first state to approve the plan.
By now various forms of the Missouri plan are used in some 35 states. Many have adopted it after bad experiences with partisan elections.
Literally millions of citizens across America see the advantages of removing their courts from the partisans and having nonpartisan judges who have been thoroughly vetted before appointment.
After all, the appointment of judges is rooted deeply in American jurisprudence. It is the only method the Founding Fathers seriously considered.
Comments on "Don't fool with our courts"
Comments are limited to 200 words or less.Ray Parker wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:47 PM:
" Johnson County voters will have the opportunity on the November, 2008 ballot to replace the manipulative control of the judicial branch of county government by unelected, unaccountable laywers and appointees, with self-government - by the people. As one of the ultraconservative pro-life right-wingers, I submit that such self-government by we unworthy, ignorant voters has made America strong and free, and just might help clean up the corruption we are seeing uncovered in Johnson County. "
Jim Atchison wrote on Dec 28, 2007 4:13 PM:
" We don't want judges committed to rule the conservative way on hot button issues such as abortion and same sex marriage. We just want judges who will be fair and do not have an axe to grind like Bob Sigman at KC Community News. Why is it that Bob Sigman has written so many articles on this topic? Could it be that they are scared that it will change.
The appointment method is subject to partisan manipulation and dishonest politicians as well. Do you want people like Paul Morrison who lied to his wife and is under investigation for abuse of his office to continue on the 10th District Nominating Commission? The manipulation is all in the back rooms. Conservatives will not be appointed although they have proved to be the most impartial judges.
The selection of judges has gone back and forth between election and appointment roughly every 30 years or so during the 220 years of our current system of government. Do we want lawyers who will become our judges picking our judges? "
The appointment method is subject to partisan manipulation and dishonest politicians as well. Do you want people like Paul Morrison who lied to his wife and is under investigation for abuse of his office to continue on the 10th District Nominating Commission? The manipulation is all in the back rooms. Conservatives will not be appointed although they have proved to be the most impartial judges.
The selection of judges has gone back and forth between election and appointment roughly every 30 years or so during the 220 years of our current system of government. Do we want lawyers who will become our judges picking our judges? "