I find it difficult to believe that “bulb-outs” (Peninsulas in this case, street obstructions that extend from a yard right of way or sidewalk into the street) are safer than standing on a right-of-way or sidewalk despite being approved by a highway commission. There are rubber tire tracks on the “bulb-out” across the street from Garfield school. Dale Linn I am writing to correct misinformation in a recent Guest Column by Jan Koepke concerning the constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot on August 4.
Kansas is NOT the only state that uses a merit-based system to select high court justices.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, thirty-three (33) states and D.C. use a nominating commission to fill a vacancy on their state’s high court.
As someone who is a “Value Them Both” advocate, Ms. Koepke is not an unbiased or impartial columnist.
As an attorney, I care about the integrity of our judicial system.
If you have questions about the current system to select Kansas Supreme Court justices, ask me. The current merit-based selection system has been remarkably successful in selecting our state’s Supreme Court justices.
Now anti-abortion politicians want to change that system.
Why is there a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year? Because the effort to pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortion failed in 2022. It’s simple: Democracy worked in 2022. Anti-abortion lobbyists, groups, and politicians did not like the result.
In 1958, Kansans created the current merit-based process to LIMIT the influence of politics in the selection of our highest court. A vote of Yes all but guarantees that the selection process will be more political, not merit-based. Kansas’ current system has worked…until politicians decided it is time for a change.
The integrity of our Kansas Supreme Court and the health care of women are at stake on August 4. If you care about women’s health care and keeping dark money out of the judiciary, vote NO on the constitution amendment on August 4. Jennifer M. Kassebaum Did You Know? Part 2 - Who are these people? There are two groups of people to consider when making decisions about how Kansas Supreme Court Justices are selected. The first group is the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Committee.
There has been a great deal of misinformation circulating about the members of this group. The eight core members represent each of the four congressional districts in Kansas.
There are four non-attorneys appointed by the governor. The current non-attorneys on this committee have resumes of community service and leadership that are extensive, broad based and non-partisan. The four attorneys on the committee received votes from every attorney in their respective districts, who voted, and was not from one specific group or organization. The resumes of each of the current attorney-members of the committee also have outstanding resumes and are extremely qualified to be on this committee.
Attorneys are members of many organizations so there is not one specifically given the responsibility of this nomination. The remaining member (Chair) is voted on by all the members of the Kansas Bar Association. Of the current nine members of the committee; 3 are republicans, 5 are democrats and 1 is not registered to vote. Five are in their first term of service which extends for four years.
The remaining four members were re-appointed when their first term expired. They range from 44 to 76 years of age. Each of these members are compensated at $15 for each meeting and reimbursed for their expenses. (KS Statutes Chapter 20, Courts 20-138) The committee does extensive research on each application. The candidate must be at least 30 years old, been actively and continuously involved in the practice of law in Kansas for at least 10 years.
They could be an attorney, judge, or law professor. The process is made available to the public via personal attendance or by watching video recordings. This is not a “closed door” process.
After extensive research by the committee, three potential candidates are submitted to the governor for additional interviews and research until a single candidate is selected.
These candidates are being considered based on merit - this means and is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a person’s qualities, actions, etc.
regarded as indicating what the person deserves to receive.” Judging a person’s merit is done by looking at their past accomplishments and circumstances. Merit has noting to do with race, religion, or gender. The selected candidates have extraordinary qualifications and proven performance as measured by their education, experience and peer reviews.
You and I should want those sitting on the highest court to use their knowledge of the Kansas Constitution as their guiding light, not a political party or wealthy donors. In Wisconsin’s recent supreme court elections, Elon Musk spent $17 million on trying to get his preferred person elected and the estimated total spent on that election was $90 million. A state’s supreme court should not be for sale. They are considering a possible change to merit based. Finally, there has been additional misinformation shared regarding how the