Most of the criticism of the Kansas Supreme Court has been political. Last week found some that was geographical, with the Johnson County Sun’s opinion page editor, Bob Sigman, lamenting that the state’s most populous county does not have a candidate among the top three nominees for the latest opening on the court. Noting that only one “bona fide” Johnson Countian has ever served on the court and that four county residents were among the 14 applicants this time, Sigman said, “Surely no other place in the state has a superior talent pool — judges and lawyers — than Johnson County.” He added: “On an ideal, balanced court, it should be appropriate for the most heavily populated county in the state to have a place at the table.” The final three, by the way, are former Wichitan Tom Malone, a member of the Kansas Court of Appeals since 2003, as well as Court of Appeals Judge Lee Johnson, who formerly practiced law in Caldwell in Sumner County, and Douglas County District Judge Robert Fairchild.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
It looks like partisan differences will prevail to the end of a special Kansas House panel’s investigation of the “Nuss fuss,” which is now expected to conclude later this month with release of both a majority report and a minority report. In one corner we have Republicans, still suspicious that contact between Kansas Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss and two state senators influenced legislative voting on school finance. In the other corner are Democrats such as Rep. Jim Ward of Wichita, who said this week: “There has been no evidence any legislator was influenced.” If this whole process has a point, it had better show up in the dueling final reports.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Frustrating as it is for Sedgwick County voters to judge which judicial candidates are best, the answer is not for candidates and sitting judges to declare positions on hot-button social and political issues during the campaign. So it’s disturbing that Sedgwick County District Judge Eric Yost recently asked to join the other plaintiffs, including incoming Judge Robb Rumsey, in the federal lawsuit challenging the state’s judicial ethics canon, which limits what candidates for judge can say during campaigns.
Part of a national effort in reaction to a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Minnesota case, the push to let judges and judicial candidates speak freely sounds great on its face. “There are two sets of rights involved here — the right of the judge to speak and the right of the people to know,” Richard Peckham, the Andover attorney who chairs the statewide Kansas Judicial Watch group, told the Kansas City Star.
But the questions on the group’s candidate questionnaire reveal a narrower goal: to pin down candidates on the school-finance lawsuit, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide and abortion. Such opinions are irrelevant to a judge’s decision making, which should be based on the law. The expression of such opinions also jeopardizes impartiality and the ability to do the job once on the bench, forcing the judge to recuse himself from cases related to his stated opinions. How does that serve justice?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Now that Kansas Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss has been admonished by the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, it’s hard to argue with the call by state Rep. Jim Ward, D-Wichita, for the House panel investigating the Nuss matter to give it up. “Now we have all the facts. At this point, what else can you do? Why would we spend money to continue to beat this dead horse?” Ward asked in the Topeka Capital-Journal. The judicial ethics panel also was able to hear from the senators involved in Nuss’ inappropriate conversation about the school finance case, something the House panel hasn’t been able to do because of senators’ resistance on constitutional grounds. Ward also said that despite several weeks of campaigning in his district, “I’ve not heard one comment about this outside the dome.” Enough.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
GOP gubernatorial candidate Jim Barnett had called for Justice Nuss to resign over his ethics lapse. So when the Commission on Judicial Qualifications admonished Nuss, Barnett cited it as further evidence that the state needs a new way of picking justices and told the Capital-Journal: “I’m not surprised that judges have decided another judge hadn’t done anything wrong.”
For the record, though, the 14-member commission, chosen by the Supreme Court, includes four laypeople as well as six retired or active judges and four lawyers. Its current lay members are Bruce Buchanan of Hutchinson, Mary Davidson Cohen of Leawood, Christina Pannbacker of Washington and Carolyn A. Tillotson of Leavenworth.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
