Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas judges

  • A better way to pick judges

    Contributed by John Todd and William T. Davitt. I fully agree.

    A recent editorial in The Wichita Eagle discussed how trial court judges in Kansas are selected by either election or appointment. We favor neither method.

    Election of judges invites corruption because attorneys and other special-interest groups contribute money to judges’ election campaigns. It is doubtful whether one voter in 10 could even name two of the 25 judges currently on the court. And if they could name two judges, would they have any idea regarding their job performance? Thus it appears that voters do not make an “informed choice” in the voting booth, and instead select judges based on name recognition, party affiliation or yard-sign count.

    Appointment of judges invites corruption because attorneys and other special interests maneuver their members onto the selection committee that sends the names to the governor, and then they go behind the scenes and tell the governor which one they really want.

    We favor a third way of selecting judges as advocated by Gerry Spence in his book “From Freedom to Slavery.” Mr. Spence favors having our judges drafted from a pool of trial lawyers who would serve on the bench for a “limited calendar of cases” before being returned to their private practices. Every trial lawyer would be required to support the system in the same manner, as citizens are now required to serve as jurors.

    Court dockets would soon clear out, because enough judges could be drafted as were needed to clear the dockets. Mr. Spence states: “If judges were drafted, we would no longer be saddled for life with the political cronies of those in power, or be faced with judges who have received campaign contributions from our opponents. To be sure, we would experience some bad judges. But, Lord knows, we have them now — and often for life! On the other hand, we would benefit from the best minds in the legal business, who under our present system rarely seek the judiciary.”

    Democracy requires full faith that justice will be administered with absolute impartiality. That faith is certainly challenged if we enter a courtroom knowing that our opponent has contributed substantial money to our trial judge’s last election campaign or that the judge was endorsed for appointment by a group or corporation that opposes our position in court. The current methods of electing or appointing judges offer little comfort in view of their corrosive effect on public confidence in the court system.

    John R. Todd is a Wichita real estate broker. William T. Davitt is a Wichita lawyer.

  • Court Sets Trap for Legislature

    I received the following, which I thought was interesting, so I present it. I do not entirely understand the author’s argument, so if anyone can help me understand, I would appreciate it.

    Kansas Legislative Education And Research
    827 SW TOPEKA BLVD TOPEKA, KS 66612
    PHONE: 785 233 8765 EMAIL: ks klear@swbell.net

    Contact: Bob L. Corkins

    Court sets Trap for Legislature

    The Bait:

    “The Kansas Constitution thus imposes a mandate that our educational system cannot be static or regressive…

    “…there is substantial competent evidence, including the Augenblick & Myers study, establishing that a suitable education, as that term is defined by the legislature, is not being provided.”

    “…we need look no further than the legislature’s own definition of suitable education to determine that the standard is not being met under the current financing formula.”

    “…the legislature has failed to “make suitable provision for finance” of the public school system as required by Article 6 § 6 of the Kansas Constitution.”

    “It is clear increased funding will be required…”

    The Snare:

    The Supreme Court requires additional funding and implies that the legislature must do so because constitutional standard of “suitable education” has not been achieved. Increasing funding for this reason would be like walking into a trap.

    Did the Supreme Court say the constitution requires “suitable education”?

    *No*

    The Court said the constitution requires “improvement’ and that the legislature has interpreted this to mean
    “suitable education”.

    The Court merely asserts that Article 6 refers to an improving educational system.

    The Court itself is not making the connection, it’s just claiming that the legislature has interpreted “improvement’ ‘to mean “suitable education”.

    The Court does not even explicitly say it agrees with the legislature’s alleged interpretation.

    Is there anything in the Kansas Constitution that requires a minimally acceptable level of education quality?

    No

    All the Court’s references to minimum quality standards are to those now set (or may have at one time been set) by the legislature, not by the constitution.

    The Court repeatedly states that the legislature failed to satisfy its own standards, not that the legislature failed to satisfy any constitutional standard.

    A statutory standard does not equate to a constitutional entitlement.

    The constitution’s mandate for “improvement” logically refers to students’ opportunity for personal self ‘improvement as compared to their ability to do so in the absence of public schools.

    Suitable education indeed, even uniformly excellent education is a worthy and legitimate public policy goal even if it is not compelled by the state constitution.

    To Avoid the Trap:

    Financing must be increased, but do not do so because current funding violates any constitutional “suitable education” standard.

    All current, and all future, statutory definitions of “suitable education” must make abundantly clear that the legislature is not defining the term as the result of a constitutional mandate, and that “suitable education” is distinct from the true constitutional mandate of “suitable provision for finance”.