A small number of liberal Kansas trial lawyers and liberal politicians argue that the “Kansas Judicial system is not broke, don’t fix it.” An easy test to show that the system is broken is to do the following:
TEST
Ask any
group of Kansas voters if they go into a voting booth
containing a ballot with judge/justice names, with no idea
how to vote. If you ask for a show of hands, they ALL raise
their hands. This is a clear indication that the democratic
process is circumvented by a small group seeking to block
the voters from information necessary to make an
intelligent vote.
While the liberal trial lawyers assert that the system of
election of judges is “political”, and imply
that appointment by a Governor and a small group of trial
lawyers is not political, this is simply not true. Whenever
a small group of politicians make major decisions without
input from the public, it is highly political and
dangerous. See “Mushroom Farm” below.
The
Problem: The
people don’t know who to vote for as District,
Appeals and Supreme Court Judges for several
reasons:
The Mushroom Farm
Kansas
citizens, seeking information on Judge candidates are
incorrectly told that Judges may not supply answers to
inquiries and candidate questionnaires concerning
background, legal experience, judicial temperament,
philosophy, and values.
The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications, through the Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel (Opinion JE 117, March 19, 2004) has opined that Judge candidates may not secure voter signature petitions (as currently allowed by State law) because they constitute solicitation of “publicly stated support” and therefore should not be allowed. This Kansas ethics opinion clearly contradicts the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White, 536 US 765 (2002) a ruling that affirms the rights of judicial candidates to state their views on disputed political issues and to participate in the competitive political process.
Attorneys are reluctant to comment publicly about performance and qualifications of sitting judges and judge candidates for fear of bogus ethics charges and fear of reprisals from sitting judges before whom the attorneys practice their means of livelihood.
Judges and other judicial candidates have been reluctant to even fill out candidate questionnaires or speak publicly on issues, for fear of bogus ethics charges, however, judges and judge candidates are now free to participate fully in the competitive political election process in every state in the union, protected by the U. S. Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White, cited above. Click on Legal Representation for information about free legal assistance to judicial candidates.
Republican Party of Minnesota v White Supreme Court Decision
Download PDF file of Republican Party of Minnesota vs White Supreme Court Decision
Adobe Reader is required to view the decision.
The above described conditions are analogous to a mushroom farm. Mushrooms are grown commercially in dark places. Bureaucratic systems that block public inspection and promote narrow interest groups become like mushroom farms, preventing voters from acquiring informed judgement about the system and its judges. The confluence of the above described problems has produced tragic results for the people, families and businesses of Kansas. Consider the following few examples of chronic overreaching by the Supreme Court:
The TAX AND SPEND authorities established by the Kansas Constitution (the people’s document) are placed with the legislature, the people’s representatives, not the Kansas Supreme Court. Yet, the Supreme Court routinely ignores the Constitution. The recent holdings in Montoy vs. State are among the many egregious examples of usurpation of the legislative prerogatives of the people to control public education and the powers of taxing and spending.
The 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS of the people to protect themselves are damaged by arrogant liberal Courts refusing to recognize the legislative rights of the Kansas House and Senate, the people’s representatives.
The DEATH PENALTY, which enjoys strong support throughout the United States and Kansas, is blocked by the Kansas Supreme Court. This is a policy issue for the legislature, not the Court.
The PRESERVATION OF MARRIAGE between one man and one woman is a legislative prerogative not for determination by the courts.
ABORTION and its public financing, disfavored by Americans and Kansans, are legislative policy issues not to be controlled by an unelected Kansas Supreme Court.
SEXUAL PREDITORS AND PORNOGRAPHY are two related problems where liberal courts tend to substitute their own judgement and eliminate the will of the people, under a false argument of constitutionality, resulting in rulings which do not protect families and children.