The Real Question on the Question of Justices
Could be more about the Kansas Legislature than the Kansas Supreme Court
One big question on Aug. 4 shouldn’t be whether you trust the Kansas Supreme Court - it should be whether you trust the Kansas Legislature.
Held within the long and winding Constitutional amendment ballot question a phrase that deserves more attention than it’s been getting…
“Provided by Law.”
From the ballot question:
“The citizens of Kansas who are qualified electors shall elect the justices of the supreme court. The rules applicable for such elections and the designation of position numbers shall be provided by law.
And
“Any vacancy occurring on the supreme court for an unexpired term shall be filled by election as provided by law.
”
It essentially means the rules haven’t been written.
Much like the so-called “Value Them Both” amendment in 2022, this language sets up a scenario that gives the Kansas Legislature broad authority to write the rules and regulations however they’d like. And change them over and over again whenever they feel like it.
The same dynamic exists here.
In this case, the ruling party in the Kansas Legislature hopes that Kansans will change the Kansas Constitution by approving a blanket statement to elect justices, rather than relying on the current nominating commission that’s been in place since the 1950s.
But how those elections will be handled, the rules that will govern those elections, restrictions on how Judicial candidates can raise money and campaign - not one bit of that has been written or decided yet. Likewise, there are no rules set on how vacancies will be filled if this direct election method is approved. The legislature will have the authority to write those rules however they see fit.
More concerning might be the fact that future legislatures can’t be bound by the decisions of past legislatures. Just ask your local governments who missed out on 20+ years of statutorily mandated property tax relief payment. They know better than anyone that just because a law is on the books, it doesn’t mean anyone in Topeka is going to follow it.
One year, the legislature might draft some rules about how a Supreme Court Justice can’t also be the Chair of a state political party. Seems reasonable that there’s some conflict of interest there. But a few years later, there might be a group of lawmakers who feel that’s just fine.
It might seem nearly impossible now, but there even could be a time when those lowly, communist, socialist, (insert the slur de jour here) Democrats might even have control of the legislature. I can’t imagine the rules they’ll write then will be very favorable to Republicans.
I guess if you think the Kansas Legislature is doing some pretty good work, what with its 20-year tax breaks for data centers and taxpayer funded corporate welfare for billionaires, then go ahead and vote to give them a blank check to get whatever they want in the judicial branch.
But based on what I’ve witnessed over the years, I’m gonna go ahead and vote “No.”
Another little bit worth noting.
I’ve seen some posts, mostly by Republican House leadership, crying foul that so many groups they don’t like have lined up against this Constitutional Amendment, and ‘gasp’ spent money to help educate voters. Sure seems that this group doesn’t like it when people do what they’ve been doing all along. And I’ll be curious to see if the money totals for team “yes” holds. There are some sneaky devils there who are crazy good at hiding money they spend.
Anyway, it’s funny to me because it’s not like those groups proposed the change. Republican Leadership, and the various groups aligned with them, pushed this ballot question through and insisted on trying to get this change. These groups are simply defending against that action. We have got to stop letting these folks do questionable/abusive/shady things and allow them to play the victim when people stand up and defend themselves against it.