This is a response to what the KS Sup. Ct. Justice said in the article below. See end where there is testimony by citizen members of the commission about how political the current process is! An Inside Look at the Supreme Court Nominating Commission In Kansas, applications for vacancies to the state Supreme Court are “screened” by a nine-member Supreme Court Nominating Commission. Licensed Kansas attorneys from the State Bar get to pick five of the nine members of the Commission while the Governor appoints the other four. This is called the “merit selection” method and here’s how it operates: 1. The Commission publicly meets to announce the candidates who have volunteered. 2. In private deliberations, the Commission picks their three favorite candidates. 3. The Governor must choose one of the three names sent by the Commission or else the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court is authorized to fill the position. States have varying processes of judicial nomination (including election or direct appointment). Promoters of the “merit-selection” model claim this method protects judicial selection from politics. However, Kansas is the only state to give majority control over the Commission to attorneys —who are not unbiased, as seen by their own political contributions. The “merit selection” method does not insulate selection from politics as its supporters like to claim. Two of the non-lawyer members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission testified last year to the Kansas Legislature (excerpted below) about their experience on the Commission, and how shockingly politicized the decision-making becomes behind closed doors: Commission member, Bob Hayworth Chief Operating Officer, Kansas City Series of Lockton Companies “During both deliberations and voting, the qualities of a good judge quickly morphed into areas that were suspect to me. They included political philosophy, gender, locale, American Bar Association engagement, and age to name a few. In fact, if my company were to not hire employees based on some of the traits considered and used in deliberations by some members, we would likely end up in appellate court.” “We often hear that any change to the current nominating and selection process will introduce politics into the proceedings and not give the people of Kansas a true non-partisan nominating process. Politics are already in the process and to deny it does not play a factor is being less than genuine.” kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/committees/misc/ctte_h_jud_1_20130122_03_other.pdf Commission member, Felita Kahrs Title I Quality Assurance Manager, Non-Public Educational Services, Inc. “I am here to today to testify that the current system needs reform for the reasons that: 1) the selection process is not merit based, 2) it is political, and 3) it is unfair.” “When it came time to discuss candidates who were known for their conservative political views everything changed…One of the candidates was immediately dismissed by a strong majority of the Commission because of his affiliation with the Governor.” “…the process is political. This was most evident during our deliberations regarding the two conservative candidates. Our discussions became extremely heated and sometimes hostile. I witnessed disdain towards these candidates from some of the Commissioners. The tenor of the comments were: this candidate is too political, this candidate is too closely associated with the Governor, this candidate was openly pro-life while serving in the legislature; and doubts were raised about them being able to separate their politics from their duty to serve in the sought role.” kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/committees/misc/ctte_h_jud_1_20130122_10_other.pdf
Posted on: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:02:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015