|
|
|
PITTSBURG —
As most Kansans are by now aware, Gov. Brownback and certain legislators are attempting to change the way appellate court judges are selected. The present method is termed “merit selection” and has existed since 1958. Under the merit selection method, all applicants are thoroughly interviewed and vetted by a nonpartisan state-wide committee in an open forum. The committee then selects the three most qualified applicants, whose names are submitted to the governor for appointment of the most deserving of the three as determined by the governor.
Merit selection was wisely introduced by the Legislature to eliminate politics in the selection of judges and to insure that only the best qualified candidates were appointed. This process has worked very well and Kansas is consequently blessed with a quality appellate court system which has become a model for the entire country. Because of merit selection, Kansas appellate judges are able to make decisions based on the rule of law rather than with an eye toward politics.
However, the governor and certain others are seeking to abolish merit selection and replace it with the process used in Washington. Under this system, the governor would submit his personally chosen nominee to the Kansas Senate for confirmation. Consequently, the “zoo” that we witness in Washington when a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court goes through confirmation would likewise be seen in Topeka. Partisan politics, in all its ugliness, would no doubt rule the confirmation hearings.
This proposed change to the selection process is extremely disturbing. It means that judges would no longer be chosen based upon what they kknow, but rather who they know and whether they possessed the “correct” political philosophy.
Because of the infusion of politics into the process, courts would inevitably become more political and less independent. An independent judiciary is absolutely vital in a healthy constitutional democracy.
The elimination of merit selection would also result in a gradual reduction in the quality of Kansas appellate courts because there would be no vetting of candidates by a neutral committee. Rather, nominees chosen by the governor would be selected based upon political considerations rather than merit.
This important issue transcends party politics; all Kansans, whether Republican or Democrat, deserve judges whose sole loyalty is to the rule of law and not to politics. This issue has far-reaching consequences and, frankly, Kansans deserve better than this.
In the final analysis, this proposed change represents an attempt by certain Topeka extremists to inject their own brand of governance upon Kansas courts. Please do not let this occur. Consider contacting our elected state officials in Topeka and instruct them to oppose any change in the way in which appellate judges are selected.
The Hon. Don Noland is a retired judge from the 11th District Court. He resides in Pittsburg.
As most Kansans are by now aware, Gov. Brownback and certain legislators are attempting to change the way appellate court judges are selected. The present method is termed “merit selection” and has existed since 1958. Under the merit selection method, all applicants are thoroughly interviewed and vetted by a nonpartisan state-wide committee in an open forum. The committee then selects the three most qualified applicants, whose names are submitted to the governor for appointment of the most deserving of the three as determined by the governor.
Merit selection was wisely introduced by the Legislature to eliminate politics in the selection of judges and to insure that only the best qualified candidates were appointed. This process has worked very well and Kansas is consequently blessed with a quality appellate court system which has become a model for the entire country. Because of merit selection, Kansas appellate judges are able to make decisions based on the rule of law rather than with an eye toward politics.
However, the governor and certain others are seeking to abolish merit selection and replace it with the process used in Washington. Under this system, the governor would submit his personally chosen nominee to the Kansas Senate for confirmation. Consequently, the “zoo” that we witness in Washington when a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court goes through confirmation would likewise be seen in Topeka. Partisan politics, in all its ugliness, would no doubt rule the confirmation hearings.
This proposed change to the selection process is extremely disturbing. It means that judges would no longer be chosen based upon what they kknow, but rather who they know and whether they possessed the “correct” political philosophy.
Because of the infusion of politics into the process, courts would inevitably become more political and less independent. An independent judiciary is absolutely vital in a healthy constitutional democracy.
The elimination of merit selection would also result in a gradual reduction in the quality of Kansas appellate courts because there would be no vetting of candidates by a neutral committee. Rather, nominees chosen by the governor would be selected based upon political considerations rather than merit.
This important issue transcends party politics; all Kansans, whether Republican or Democrat, deserve judges whose sole loyalty is to the rule of law and not to politics. This issue has far-reaching consequences and, frankly, Kansans deserve better than this.
In the final analysis, this proposed change represents an attempt by certain Topeka extremists to inject their own brand of governance upon Kansas courts. Please do not let this occur. Consider contacting our elected state officials in Topeka and instruct them to oppose any change in the way in which appellate judges are selected.
The Hon. Don Noland is a retired judge from the 11th District Court. He resides in Pittsburg.
