Voice For Liberty

Tag: Elections

  • Questioning Pat Roberts

    One of the small news items emerging from the Kansas Republican Party Convention last weekend is that Pat Roberts will run for reelection to the U.S. Senate next year.

    So is this a good thing, or not? Gidget of Kansas GOP Insider (wannabe) offers one opinion in her post on the topic:

    Look, I like Sen. Roberts. He’s a nice enough guy, but he will not make any waves. He will not rock any boats. I do not understand it. Most 76 year olds are willing to wear purple suits and red hats in public as some sort of matter of pride. It’s their way of saying, I’ve lived long enough I’ll do as I damn well please.

    But not Sen. Roberts.

    Where every member of the Kansas delegation in the House voted against the plan to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff — there was Roberts being a “statesman” by raising your taxes without the agreement of any cuts.

    This is a regularly repeated occurrence for those in the U.S. Senate. They are absolutely willing to sell the people down the river in return for being called “statesman” and getting re-elected.

    The truly disgusting part is that we’re all going to vote for Sen. Roberts again.

    If he draws a primary opponent, it will be a miracle. And even if he does draw a primary opponent, everyone will tip toe around for fear of upsetting Roberts and the many people who owe him their careers.

    The Wall Street Journal noticed a vote made by Senator Roberts in committee that lead to the fiscal cliff bill. The newspaper explained the harm of this bill in its editorial:

    The great joke here is that Washington pretends to want to pass “comprehensive tax reform,” even as each year it adds more tax giveaways that distort the tax code and keep tax rates higher than they have to be. Even as he praised the bill full of this stuff, Mr. Obama called Tuesday night for “further reforms to our tax code so that the wealthiest corporations and individuals can’t take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans.”

    One of Mr. Obama’s political gifts is that he can sound so plausible describing the opposite of his real intentions.

    The costs of all this are far greater than the estimates conjured by the Joint Tax Committee. They include slower economic growth from misallocated capital, lower revenues for the Treasury and thus more pressure to raise rates on everyone, and greater public cynicism that government mainly serves the powerful.

    Republicans who are looking for a new populist message have one waiting here, and they could start by repudiating the corporate welfare in this New Year disgrace.

    The Journal took the rare measure of calling out the senators who voted for this bill in committee, as shown in its nearby graphic. There it is: Pat Roberts voting in concert with the likes of John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and Debbie Stabenow.

    If Tom Coburn of Oklahoma could vote against this bill in committee, then so could have Pat Roberts. But he didn’t.

  • Kansas judicial selection reform: Testimony

    Kansas University School of Law Professor Stephen J. Ware is at the forefront of making the reasoned case as to why Kansas needs to reform the way it selects judges to its two highest courts. He recently testified on this matter before a committee of the Kansas Legislature.

    The opening of his testimony makes the case for bringing democracy to Kansas judicial selection:

    No one can become a justice on the Kansas Supreme Court without being one of the three finalists chosen by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission. The Commission is the gatekeeper to the Kansas Supreme Court. However, the Commission is selected in a shockingly undemocratic way.

    Most of the members of the Commission are picked in elections open to only about 10,000 people, the members of the state bar. The remaining 2.9 million people in Kansas have no vote in these elections.

    This violates basic equality among citizens, the principle of one-person, one-vote. The current system concentrates tremendous power in one small group and treats everyone else like second-class citizens. In a democracy, a lawyer’s vote should not be worth more than any other citizen’s vote. As Washburn University School of Law professor Jeffrey Jackson wrote, democratic legitimacy “would appear to favor a reduction in the influence of the state bar and its members over the nominating commission, because they do not fit within the democratic process.”

    Ware’s testimony was offered in support of SCR 1601. This measure would change the system so that judges on the Kansas Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court are nominated by the governor and confirmed (or not) by the senate. Judges would stand for retention elections every six years, as they do now.

    Ware recently appeared on the KAKE Television public affairs program This Week in Kansas. Video may be viewed at Kansas judicial selection: The need for reform.

  • Campaign contributions show need for reform in Wichita

    Candidates for Wichita City Council have filed campaign finance reports, and the filings illustrate the need for campaign finance reform in Wichita and Kansas.

    Two incumbents, both who have indicated their intent to run in the spring elections, received campaign contributions in 2012 from two sources: A group of principals and executives of Key Construction, and another group associated with theater owner Bill Warren.

    The incumbent candidates receiving these contributions are Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) and Wichita City Council Member Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita).

    Except for $1.57 in unitemized contributions to Clendenin, these two groups accounted for all contributions received by these two incumbents.

    Those associated with Key Construction gave a total of $7,000. Williams received $4,000, and $3,000 went to Clendenin.

    Those associated with Warren gave $5,000, all to Clendenin.

    So do these two groups have an extraordinarily keen interest in Wichita city government that’s not shared by anyone else?

    Yes they do, and it’s not benevolent. Both have benefited from the cronyism of the Wichita City Council, in particular members Williams and Clendenin.

    Here’s one example, perhaps the worst. In August 2011 the council voted to award Key Construction a no-bid contract to build the parking garage that is part of the Ambassador Hotel project, now known as Block One. The no-bid cost of the garage was to be $6 million, according to a letter of intent. Later the city decided to place the contract for competitive bid. Key Construction won the bidding, but for a price $1.3 million less.

    Both Williams and Clendenin voted for this no-bid contract that was contrary to the interests of taxpayers. They didn’t vote for this reluctantly. They embraced it.

    Last summer Williams and Clendenin, along with the rest of the council, participated in a decision to award the large contract for the construction of the new Wichita airport to Key Construction, despite the fact that Key was not the low bidder. The council was tasked to act in a quasi-judicial manner, to make decisions whether discretion was abused or whether laws were improperly applied.

    Judges shouldn’t preside over decisions that hugely enrich their significant campaign contributors. No matter what the merits of the case, this is bad government.

    Did Key’s political involvement and campaign contributions play a role in the council awarding the company a no-bid garage contract and the airport contract? Key Construction executives and their spouses are among a small group who routinely make maximum campaign contributions to candidates. These candidates are both liberal and conservative, which rebuts the presumption that these contributions are made for ideological reasons, that is, agreeing with the political positions of candidates. Instead, Key Construction and a few others are political entrepreneurs. They seek to please politicians and bureaucrats, and by doing so, receive no-bid contracts and other benefits. This form of cronyism is harmful to Wichita taxpayers, as shown by the Ambassador Hotel garage.

    Warren and his business partners have received largess from the council, too. In 2008 (before Clendenin joined the council) the Wichita City Council approved a no- and low-interest loan to Bill Warren and his partners. Reported the Wichita Eagle: “Wichita taxpayers will give up as much as $1.2 million if the City Council approves a $6 million loan to bail out the troubled Old Town Warren Theatre this week. That’s because that $6 million, which would pay off the theater’s debt and make it the only fully digital movie theater in Kansas, would otherwise be invested and draw about 3 percent interest a year.”

    Wichita’s need for campaign finance reform

    The campaign finance reports of Williams and Clendenin reinforce and spotlight the need for campaign finance reform in Wichita and Kansas.

    When it is apparent that a “pay-to-play” environment exists at Wichita City Hall, it creates a toxic and corrosive political and business environment. Companies are reluctant to expand into areas where they don’t have confidence in the integrity of local government. Will I find my company bidding against a company that made bigger campaign contributions than I did? If I don’t make the right campaign contributions, will I get my zoning approved? Will my building permits be slow-walked through the approval process? Will my projects face unwarranted and harsh inspections? Will my bids be subjected to microscopic scrutiny?

    We need laws to prohibit Wichita city council members from voting on or advocating for decisions that enrich their significant campaign contributors. Citizens are working on this initiative on several fronts. Some find the actions of these candidates so distasteful and offensive that they are willing to take to the streets to gather thousands of signatures to force the Wichita City Council to act in a proper manner.

    That huge effort shouldn’t be necessary. Why not? The politicians who accept these campaign contributions say it doesn’t affect their voting, and those who give the contributions say they don’t give to influence votes.

    If politicians and contributors really mean what they say, there should be no opposition to such a “pay-to-play” law. Citizens should ask the Wichita City Council to pass a campaign finance reform ordinance that prohibits voting to enrich significant campaign contributors.

  • In Wichita, a quest for campaign finance reform

    Actions of the Wichita City Council have shown that campaign finance reform is needed. Citizen groups are investigating how to accomplish this needed reform, since the council has not shown interest in reforming itself.

    Consider recent actions by the council and its members:

    The common thread running through these incidents? Council members voting to enrich their campaign contributors. Each of these — and there are others — are examples of a “pay-to-play” environment created at Wichita City Hall. It’s harmful to our city in a number of ways.

    First, overpriced no-bid contracts and other giveaways to campaign contributors isn’t economic development. It’s cronyism. It’s wasteful and abusive of taxpayers and erodes their trust in government.

    Second: Citizens become cynical when they feel there is a group of insiders who get whatever they want from city hall at the expense of taxpayers. At one time newspaper editorial pages crusaded against cronyism like this. But no longer in Wichita.

    Additionally, when it is apparent that a “pay-to-play” environment exists at Wichita City Hall, it creates a toxic and corrosive political and business environment. Companies are reluctant to expand into areas where they don’t have confidence in the integrity of local government. Will I find my company bidding against a company that made bigger campaign contributions than I did? If I don’t make the right campaign contributions, will I get my zoning approved? Will my building permits be slow-walked through the approval process? Will my projects face unwarranted and harsh inspections? Will my bids be subjected to microscopic scrutiny?

    We need laws to prohibit Wichita city council members from voting on or advocating for decisions that enrich their significant campaign contributors. A model law for Wichita is a charter provision of the city of Santa Ana, in Orange County, California, which states: “A councilmember shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to influence, a decision of the City Council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, apart from its effect on the public generally or a significant portion thereof, on a recent major campaign contributor.”

    We’d also need to add — as does New Jersey law — provisions that contributions from a business owner’s spouse and children will be deemed to be from the business itself. Additionally the contributions of principals, partners, officers, and directors, and their spouses, are considered to be from the business itself for purposes of the law. These provisions are important, as many city council members in Wichita receive campaign contributions from business owners’ family members and employees as a way to skirt our relatively small contribution limits.

    Such campaign finance reform would not prohibit anyone from donating as much as they want (under the current restrictions) to any candidate. Nor would the law prevent candidates from accepting campaign contributions from anyone.

    This reform, however, would remove the linkage between significant contributions and voting to give money to the contributor. This would be a big step forward for Wichita, its government, and its citizens.

    Proponents see three paths towards campaign finance reform. One would be to press for a law in the upcoming session of the Kansas Legislature. Such a law would be statewide in scope, and could apply to city councils, county commissions, school boards, and other elective bodies.

    A second path would be to use the municipal initiative process, which was used by community water fluoridation advocates in Wichita this year. Under this process, a group writes a proposed ordinance. Then, it must collect about 6,200 valid signatures on petitions. If a successful petition is verified, the city council must either (a) pass the ordinance as written, or (b) set an election. For the fluoridation initiative the council voted to call an election, which was held as part of the November general election. (The initiative failed to obtain a majority of votes, so the proposed ordinance did not take effect.)

    There is also a third path, which is for the Wichita City Council to recognize the desirability of campaign finance reform and pass such an ordinance on its own initiative.

    If we take the affected parties at their word, this third path should face little resistance. That’s because politicians who accept these campaign contributions say it doesn’t affect their voting, and those who give the contributions say they don’t do it to influence votes.

    If politicians and contributors really mean what they say, there should be no opposition to such a law. Citizens should ask the Wichita City Council to pass a campaign finance reform ordinance that prohibits voting to enrich significant campaign contributors.

    Incidents

    In 2008 the Wichita City Council approved a no- and low-interest loan to Bill Warren and his partners. Reported the Wichita Eagle: “Wichita taxpayers will give up as much as $1.2 million if the City Council approves a $6 million loan to bail out the troubled Old Town Warren Theatre this week. That’s because that $6 million, which would pay off the theater’s debt and make it the only fully digital movie theater in Kansas, would otherwise be invested and draw about 3 percent interest a year.”

    When questioned about election donations:

    “I would never do anything because of a campaign contribution,” said [former council member Sharon] Fearey, who received $500 from David Burk and $500 from David Wells.

    “I don’t think $500 buys a vote,” said [former council member Sue] Schlapp.

    “One has nothing to do with the other,” [Wichita Mayor Carl] Brewer said.

    Also in 2008, the Reverend Dr. Kevass J. Harding wanted to spruce up the Ken-Mar shopping center at 13th and Oliver, now known as Providence Square. Near the end of June, Kevass Harding and his wife contributed a total of $1,000, the maximum allowed by law, to the campaign of Wichita City Council Member Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita). This was right before Harding appeared before the city council in July and August as an applicant for tax increment district financing (TIF).

    These campaign contributions, made in the maximum amount allowable, were out of character for the Hardings. They had made very few contributions to political candidates, and they appear not to have made many since then.

    But just before the Ken-Mar TIF district was to be considered for approval, the Hardings made large contributions to Williams, who is the council member representing Ken-Mar’s district. Harding would not explain why he made the contributions. Williams offered a vague and general explanation that had no substantive meaning.

    In August 2011 the council voted to award Key Construction a no-bid contract to build the parking garage that is part of the Ambassador Hotel project, now known as Block One. The no-bid cost of the garage was to be $6 million, according to a letter of intent. Later the city decided to place the contract for competitive bid. Key Construction won the bidding, but for a price $1.3 million less.

    The no-bid contract for the garage was just one of many subsidies and grants given to Key Construction and Dave Burk as part of the Ambassador Hotel project. In Wichita city elections, individuals may contribute up to $500 to candidates, once during the primary election and again during the general election. As you can see in this table complied from Wichita City Council campaign finance reports, spouses often contribute as well. So it’s not uncommon to see the David and DJ Burk family contribute $2,000 to a candidate for their primary and general election campaigns. That’s a significant sum for a city council district election campaign cycle. Click here for a compilation of campaign contributions made by those associated with the Ambassador Hotel project.

    Council Member Jeff Longwell (district 5, west and northwest Wichita), in his second term as council member, led the pack in accepting campaign contributions from parties associated with the Ambassador Hotel project. For his most recent election, he received $4,000 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $2,000 from David Burk and his wife. Total from parties associated with the Ambassador Hotel project: $6,000. When Longwell ran for Sedgwick County Commission this summer, these parties donated generously to that campaign, too.

    Council Member Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) received $5,000 from parties associated with the Ambassador Hotel: $3,000 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $2,000 from David Burk and his wife.

    Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer received $5,000 from parties associated with the Ambassador Hotel: $4,500 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $500 DJ Burk, David Burk’s wife.

    Council Member and Vice Mayor Janet Miller (district 6, north central Wichita) received $3,500 during her 2009 election campaign from parties associated with the Ambassador Hotel: $1,500 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $2,000 from David Burk and his wife.

    For his 2011 election campaign, Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) received $3,500 from parties associated with the Ambassador Hotel: $2,500 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $1,000 from David Burk and his wife.

    For his 2011 election campaign, Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) received $1,500 from parties associated with the Ambassador Hotel: $1,000 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $500 from David Burk and his wife.

    What citizens need to know is that the Wichita City Council was willing to spend an extra $1.3 million of taxpayer money to reward a politically-connected construction firm that makes heavy campaign contributions to council members. Only one council member, Michael O’Donnell, voted against this no-bid contract. No city bureaucrats expressed concern about this waste of taxpayer money.

    Finally: This summer while Longwell was campaigning for the Sedgwick County Commission, campaign contributions from parties associated with Walbridge, a Michigan-based construction company appeared on Longwell’s campaign finance reports. Why would those in Michigan have an interest in helping a Wichita City Council member fund his campaign for a county office? Would the fact that Walbridge is a partner with Key Construction on the new Wichita Airport terminal provide a clue?

    These contributions are of interest because on July 17, 2012, the Wichita City Council, sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, made a decision in favor of Key and Walbridge that will cost some group of taxpayers or airport customers an extra $2.1 million. Five council members, including Longwell, voted in favor of this decision. Two members were opposed.

    On July 16 — the day before the Wichita City Council heard the appeal that resulted in Key Construction apparently winning the airport contract — John Rakolta, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Walbridge and his wife contributed $1,000 to Longwell’s campaign for Sedgwick county commissioner.

    Then on July 20, three days after the council’s decision in favor of Key/Walbridge, other Walbridge executives contributed $2,250 to Longwell’s campaign. Besides the Walbridge contributions, Key Construction and its executives contributed $6,500 to Longwell’s county commission campaign. Key and its executives have been heavy contributors to Longwell’s other campaigns, as well as to Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and many other Wichita City Council members.

  • You should be able to photograph your ballot

    Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach wants to make it illegal to photograph your completed ballot, and he wants the power to enforce this law.

    There’s a thorny question here: Who owns your ballot? You, or the state? If you, then can you be prohibited from photographing something that you own?

    The usual argument for such a law is that it constrains the buying and selling of votes. A photo of your ballot, it is said, would be proof to a vote-buyer that you delivered the service you promised, if you were to sell your vote. With no ability to prove your vote, it’s thought that there would be fewer buyers.

    I don’t think, however, that the state should start judging why people voted as they did. Those who voted for Democrats in Kansas: Did they do so because these candidates promised to take more money from others in order to spend more on schools for their children?

    Those who voted for Barack Obama: Did they do so because he promised to take more taxes from high income earners to give everyone else more “stuff?”

    When a political party transports someone to the polling place because they believe the voter will vote in their favor: Is that buying a vote? Or only providing free shipping and handling?

    As H.L. Mencken wrote some years ago — before government got really big — “Every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods.” Whether the sale is implicit or explicit, it doesn’t change what’s happening. There’s no need to create new laws or enforcement powers.

    If we’re really interested in reducing the market to buy and sell votes, let’s reduce the power of government to give away stuff that someone else has paid for.

  • Tracking Sedgwick County election returns

    Updates of election returns for Sedgwick County races through a Google Docs spreadsheet. It will automatically update as I add data.

    Click here or watch below.

  • Kansas election preview

    It’s sort of a quiet election in Kansas this year. We’re not a presidential battleground state. We are solidly Republican at the presidential level, and we have just six electoral votes.

    We’re not electing a U.S. Senator this year. Our four U.S. Representatives are Republican and secure, as the Democrats fielded no challengers with realistic changes of winning.

    We have no statewide races like governor or attorney general. We do have a constitutional amendment to consider. All it does is allow the legislature to assess boats differently from other property. It’s thought that Kansas boat taxes are very high compared to surrounding states.

    There are some legislative races to watch, but the real action was in 2010 and in the August primary this year. Until recently, political power in Kansas was wielded by a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans, with either a Democratic or moderate Republican governor.

    In 2010 conservative Republicans gained a majority in the House, and are expected to retain that, although Democrats may take back a few seats.

    In 2012, all 40 senators ran for four-year terms. In the August primary eight moderate senators were defeated by conservatives, including the senate president. There are about five senate races hotly contested today, but the Kansas senate will have a conservative majority.

    Democrats across the state have been running on a few themes: That conservative Republican legislators are only rubberstamps for Governor Sam Brownback, that the income tax cuts passed this year will wreck the budget and require increases in property taxes, and that the cuts will also decimate school funding. Republicans often tie Democrats to Obamacare, whether that makes sense or not.

    No matter what happens today, Kansas will have a large turnover and many new faces in its legislature. Kansas failed to pass a redistricting bill this year, and a panel of federal judges drew new boundaries. The court created districts with no deference to the political considerations that legislatures consider. As a result, many incumbents were placed in districts with other incumbents, and many had their districts changed or redrawn considerably. The political class hated the court’s new maps, but I thought it did a good job.

    In Sedgwick County there are 28 district court judges are up for re-election, but only one spot that is contested. There were more judicial contests in the primary.

    An interesting contest is the decision as to whether Wichita will add fluoride to its water supply. With a population of 380,000 Wichita is the largest city in America that doesn’t fluoridate. A recent SurveyUSA poll had the No vote ahead 44 to 43 percent, with 13 percent undecided. Campaigns on both sides have been very active, and the pro-fluoride side has been advertising extensively.

  • Election night coverage from Watchdog Wire

    Tonight, starting at 6:00 pm EST, watch live election coverage with Tony Katz from Watchdog Wire, a project of the Franklin Center. I may even appear to offer coverage of elections in Kansas.

    Watch below or click on Citizen Watchdog Election Watch to watch in a new tab or window.

  • In Sedgwick County, a judicial candidate takes the low road

    Voters are accustomed to political campaigns that sink low with distorted facts, missing facts, innuendo, and outright lies. Judges, however, ought to be held to a higher standard, and in Kansas, the Supreme Court has rules for judges to follow in their campaigns. But the campaign for incumbent Richard T. Ballinger in Sedgwick County, Kansas, doesn’t seem to be interested in following these rules.

    In the Rules related to Judicial Conduct adopted by the Kansas Supreme Court, the title of canon four, covering political activity, starts with this admonition: “A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.”

    Specifically, the rules state:

    Rule 4.1: Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General
    (A) A judge or a judicial candidate shall not: …
    (4) knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading statement.

    The comment associated with paragraph 4 illuminates:

    [7] Judicial candidates must be scrupulously fair and accurate in all statements made by them and by their campaign committees. Paragraph (A)(4) obligates candidates and their committees to refrain from making statements that are false or misleading, or that omit facts necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially misleading.

    Here’s one example of the ways the Ballinger campaign has acted in contrary to these rules in his campaign against challenger Zoe Newton: On November 2, Ballinger ran radio advertisements stating this about Newton: “more than 60 percent of her campaign contributions have come from her boss Wink Hartman, or Hartman’s companies, or a handful of Hartman’s business associates.” The ad goes on to claim that Newton, if elected, “owes a debt of gratitude to a select few.”

    The actual facts, however, are that based on my analysis of campaign finance reports through October 29, Newton herself has contributed 60.2 percent of her total campaign funds. We can see, therefore, that Ballinger’s claim violates the rule that requires judges to “knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading statement.”

    As far as owing a “debt of gratitude,” if a case involving Hartman or his business interests were to come before a Judge Newton, she would have to recuse herself. She wouldn’t be able to preside over the case.

    But that’s not the situation with the large number of Sedgwick County attorneys who have contributed to Ballinger’s campaign. Ballinger knows who his contributors are, and the contributors know who they are. But evidently, the rules in Kansas don’t require recusal or even notification to the parties to a case that there are political campaign contributions involved.

    Judge Richard Ballinger Facebook post, October 30, 2012.

    Another example: A Georgia political action committee ran radio advertisements critical of Ballinger. He ran advertisements criticizing “secret Georgia money,” and for a time, the source of that money was unknown. But the Wichita Eagle published an article where Wink Hartman acknowledged that he was source of the funding for the ads, a fact which Ballinger signaled awareness of by posting so on his campaign’s Facebook page. But the ads claiming “secret Georgia money” continued to run, making claims that were known to be false.

    Hartman’s response might not have been necessary if not for Ballinger’s claim made in a radio advertisement. Citing Ballinger’s long tenure as judge, the commercial — in a disparaging tone and manner — said that Newton “works for Wink Hartman.” Hartman is a well-known businessman and entrepreneur who ran for U.S. Congress in 2010. He adds value to our community through his successful business ventures. And since when is working in the private sector a bad thing? I’d argue that diversity of experience, including private sector business experience, is important to our stable of judges.

    Another example: On November 1, a radio ad in Ballinger’s own voice mentioned his cease and desist order issued by the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications. That document may be read here. Ballinger says that happened seven years ago, when as you can see, the order was issued in 2006, which is six years ago.

    It might be that the events for which Ballinger was cited (“inappropriately fraternizing with subordinate employees”) happened in 2005, which would be seven years ago. The cease and desist order doesn’t say. But Ballinger certainly knows when he committed these violations of judicial conduct, and if he wants to criticize an advertisement for getting dates wrong, he should reveal the record of his conduct. Either that, or we have to argue over the meaning of the word “this.” We’ve been through that (“it,” actually) with a former president.

    Ballinger also claims, in the same advertisement: “… the Kansas Supreme Court reappointed me as chief judge with complete knowledge of the facts.” This, to me, is misleading. The same advertisement attempts a clarification a little later, when Ballinger states “I was appointed chief presiding judge of probate court.” Even this clarification does little to give voters accurate information, as the probate division, at least presently, appears to consist of only one judge — Ballinger himself.

    Further, I believe that according to Kansas statute, it is the chief judge of a judicial district who appoints presiding judges, not the Kansas Supreme Court as Ballinger claimed.

    Another example: A Ballinger advertisement mentions that he was overwhelmingly re-elected by voters in 2008. Upon hearing that, most people would assume there was a challenger that Ballinger defeated. But there was no opponent for Ballinger that year, which is not uncommon in judicial elections. Consider Ballinger’s statement in light of a comment to the rules: “Paragraph (A)(4) obligates candidates and their committees to refrain from making statements that are false or misleading, or that omit facts necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially misleading.” (emphasis added)

    I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether boasting of an overwhelming victory in an election with no opponent is materially misleading.

    Similarly, when voters make a decision about electing judges, they should remember that the Kansas Supreme Court holds judges to a high standard of conduct in their campaigns.