TOPEKA, Kan. (Legal Newsline) - Kansas lawmakers recently moved one step toward letting voters pick the state's Supreme Court justices, though associations from both sides of civil courts oppose doing so.
Almost 70 years ago, voters in the state took the process out of their own hands, creating a system in which a nine-member judicial selection panel made up of lawyers submits three candidates to the governor. The state's leading business group says the current structure keeps lawyers in charge of who becomes a justice.
Some are now pushing to end that process. SCR 611 was the subject of a Feb. 25 hearing before the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, drawing written testimony against and in support of from 45 parties.
Among them was the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association, a statewide group of plaintiff lawyers. The testimony of David Morantz, president of the group, recalls the reason why elections were removed in the first place.
In 1956, Gov. Fred Hall lost his Republican primary election, and a Democrat was set to take office at the start of the next year. Supreme Court Justice Bill Smith was contemplating retirement but didn't want a Democrat to appoint his replacement.
Smith resigned on Dec. 31, 1956, and Hall did the same a few days later. The outgoing Republican lieutenant governor subsequently became governor for 11 days until the Democrat took office, and he appointed Hall to take Smith's spot.
This led to Kansas voters deciding to put power in a judicial selection commission.
"Kansas' merit selection and Supreme Court Nominating Commission is the best process for shielding judicial candidates from improper influence during the selection process," Morantz wrote for KTLA.
Half of states hold elections for Supreme Court justices - some with party affiliations and others are nonpartisan. Even nonpartisan elections can be messy, as Wisconsin has seen tens of millions of dollars pumped into a battle between liberals and conservatives for a majority.
"By its nature, litigation and appeals result in decisions that one party to the litigation may disagree strongly with," Morantz wrote. "However, disagreeing with the Court's rulings is not the basis for changing the way justices are selected."
KLTA's concerns are joined by the Kansas Association of Defense Counsel, whose president Samantha Woods also submitted testimony. Election of justices would introduce "ever-increasing political pressures," she wrote.
"Disputes between the branches of government do not constitute a reason to amend the Constitution," she wrote. "Those tensions simply reflect the checks and balances of our government."
The bill passed the committee and moved to the full Senate. If passed, a ballot measure in 2026 will give voters the option to start judicial elections.
Supporters of the change include Robert Edmunds, a former justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court who said no system is perfect but elections allowed him to move up the ranks by listening and addressing the issues important to voters.
The business group Kansas Chamber also said elections would be preferable. VP of Government Affairs Eric Stafford's testimony said allowing a lawyer-only committee to select justices is "elitist and unfounded."
"Many crucial state boards require Senate confirmation..." he wrote. "Yet, judicial selection remains controlled by a small group of lawyers.
"Politics is undeniably part of this process."
Bringing up the past scandal is misleading, he added, as that happened because a governor could select a justice without legislative oversight.
"No one is proposing a return to that system, making such claims dishonest," he said. "The so-called 'merit system' gives disproportionate power to Kansas lawyers, who act as gatekeepers to the judiciary."