I worked at the Kansas Supreme Court. Here’s why justices should be elected | Opinion

I worked as a research attorney at the Kansas Supreme Court for three years. The justices I worked with there were skilled professionals who cared about fairness and public service. But even so, I will be voting yes on Aug. 4 to approve a constitutional amendment that would give the public the right to directly elect state Supreme Court justices.

The current system of judicial selection in Kansas is fundamentally broken. Proponents call it a merit-based system, as if it operates in a political vacuum. But it doesn’t. It is influenced by politics and values yet insulated from public input. It is unaccountable to the people.

For almost 100 years, Kansas elected its state Supreme Court justices. But since 1958, judicial selection has been outsourced to a nominating commission composed of five lawyers, elected by other lawyers, and four non-lawyers, appointed by the governor. This commission picks three candidates the governor must choose from to fill a vacancy.

One year, I ran for a lawyer spot on the nominating commission. These elections are technically nonpartisan, but I observed a workaround. Lawyer candidates often send support letters to their peers, which tout their qualifications and contain a list of supporters. The names listed signal values and political affiliation. Lawyer groups advocate for favored candidates and push whisper campaigns. Overt politics aren’t necessary.

It takes only a few hundred votes to win a nominating commission election. The reality is, a small subgroup of lawyers exercises a disproportionate level of influence over nominating commission elections, and thus, over judicial selection. This is not democracy, and it does not represent the people of Kansas.

Opponents claim the Kansas Supreme Court would become corrupt if the amendment passes. However, the majority of Kansas counties already elect their judges. Tellingly, the “vote no” campaigns do not claim that these elected county judges are unfair or unqualified, or that fraud or corruption tainted their elections. Kansas Supreme Court justices already campaign every six years to stay on the court in statewide retention elections, regulated by existing election laws.

This begs the question: Why do we trust the public to vote a justice out of office in a retention election, but not to vote one in? During a House Judiciary Committee hearing, attorney Fred Logan spoke on behalf of the Kansas Bar Association about why the association does not support the amendment. He testified that asking the public “to vote on Supreme Court justices on legal issues, that’s not a fair question to ask the voters.”

The KBA’s view smells of elitism and protectionism. Everyday Kansans interact with the legal system. They know how to pick lawyers they trust, and they understand when a judge is acting fairly. With elections, lawyer groups can still educate the public, but they will no longer be in control.

Opponents also fear that elections would make the state Supreme Court political. Judges should put the constitution over politics and personal preference, right? Yes, they should. But the reality is, the Kansas Constitution itself is a contested document, whose meaning depends on a judge’s interpretation method, values and experiences. Judges do not become blank slates when they don black robes. They are human, and that will not change whether they are elected or chosen by a commission. Elections would bring their values to light, for the people to decide.

Politics and values shape judicial selection either way. It’s time to give Kansans back the right to vote for a court of the people, by the people and for the people. This is why I’m voting yes on Aug. 4.

Sarah Stula is an attorney in Overland Park.