LETTER TO THE EDITOR, James C. Dodge, Liberal

I write in response to the recent letter signed by a group of Kansas attorneys endorsing the proposed constitutional amendment to elect Kansas Supreme Court justices. While supporters portray the measure as an expansion of voter choice, it raises serious concerns about judicial independence and the growing role of politics and money in Kansas courts.

Kansas did not adopt its current merit-selection system by accident. It was created in response to the infamous 1956 “Triple Play,” when a series of political maneuvers allowed former Gov. Fred Hall to obtain a seat on the Kansas Supreme Court after losing a primary election. Public outrage over that episode led voters to establish the Supreme Court Nominating Commission in 1958 to reduce political influence and restore confidence in the judiciary.

Supporters argue that the commission is too secretive and that voters should elect justices directly. It is true that not every aspect of the nominating process is public. However, confidentiality allows candid evaluations of judicial candidates and encourages qualified applicants to participate. The commission’s purpose is to identify the most qualified candidates, not the best campaigners.

The amendment itself provides few details beyond requiring the election of justices. It does not require nonpartisan elections, campaign finance safeguards, or any specific structure for judicial elections. Those decisions would be left to future legislatures. Kansans are being asked to approve a constitutional change without knowing what the resulting election system will actually look like.

Supporters also criticize the role attorneys play in the current process. Yet lawyers are hardly the only individuals or groups with interests before the courts. Businesses, health care systems, insurers, trade associations, labor organizations, and advocacy groups all have stakes in judicial decisions. The question is not whether interests exist, but whether contested judicial elections would diminish their influence or merely redirect it into campaign fundraising, political advertising, and outside spending.

Kansas voters already have a voice through judicial retention elections. The real question is whether electing Supreme Court justices will produce a more independent judiciary or one more vulnerable to political pressure and campaign money.

Before abandoning a system adopted to shield our highest court from political maneuvering, Kansans should remember the circumstances that led to its creation. The lesson of the “Triple Play” was that public confidence in the judiciary depends on keeping partisan politics at arm’s length from judicial selection.