Posted on 02/15/2006 1:11:09 PM PST by kathsua
NY Ruling Could Impact Kansas Courts Print E-mail By Jalexson Wednesday, 15 February 2006
By Jalexson
HUTCHINSON, KS -- The recent ruling by federal Judge John Gleeson in Lopez Torres v. New York State Board of Elections, could set the stage for a federal court challenge of some Kansas courts. The specific ruling, however, would not be applicable because of differences in the courts of the two states. The New York case involved the selection of judicial candidates for election to lower courts ( called “supreme courts” in New York ). Although voters choose judges, the mechanism for selecting the candidates had become tightly controlled by party bosses with the result that voters had few real choices.
The case was brought by Judge Margarita Lopez Torres and Common Cause. Judge Gleeson agreed and ordered a temporary change in elections until the legislature had time to act.
The important aspect for Kansas courts is the indication that federal judges will act to change state court systems to rectify questionable practices involving selection of judges. The selection process for Kansas courts at the very top and very bottom could be challenged.
Kansas Supreme Court justices are recommended by a commission and appointed by the governor with no legislative role. This system was chosen 50 years ago after Governor Fred Hall, who had been defeated by George Docking, resigned as governor and had the lieutenant governor appoint him the court to replace a justice who died too late to be replaced at the election. The excuse given for changing from electing judges to appointing them was to prevent a future governor from doing the same thing. However, such abuse could have been prevented by a special election; The more likely reason for the change was the realization that it would be easier for the politically powerful to control the court if justices were appointed. A governor with friends on the nominating commission, including those he appointed, could get himself appointed to the court just as Fred Hall did. The procedure is called “merit selection” but “merit” can be a subjective concept. It is unrealistic to expect this process to recommend justices without regard to their political views, including what they consider to be the appropriate role of the courts. The lack of a legislative role means that a small politically connected group can control the appointment of Kansas Supreme Court justices just as a small group controls selection of trial court judges in New York. Use of a non-elected nominating group shuts the people out of the selection process. Allowing the governor to make a unilateral selection gives the governor too much control. Ask yourself if you would want a president like Bill Clinton or George W. Bush appointing U.S. Supreme Court justices without getting Senate approval. It might be possible for a citizen's group to challenge the selection process directly through a federal lawsuit ... or citizens or the Kansas Attorney General might suggest that the selection process should disqualify the Kansas Supreme Court from making decisions on politically oriented decisions, such as the one it made on school finance last year. (Editor's Note: Part 2, to be published later in the week, addresses municipal courts.)
Comments
We're a representative republic.
IIRC, even our Senators were selected by state legislators, not the people, prior to one of the ammendments.
"I think all judges should be elected by the people anyway because this is supposed to be a democracy."
Actually, it's not.
It's a 'representative Republic'.
Although you may 'democratically' elect representatives to Congress, the President is selected by the total number 'Electoral Votes' he receives.
If this was not the case, then the people in the most populated cities and states would essentially control who becomes President.
Federal Judges are selected by the President and voted upon by the Senate.
Citizens voting on who becomes a Federal Judge would not be a wise idea, and why the founders setup our Constitution the way it is, to avoid corruption.
And here in Pennsylvania, we elect our judges and raise such to a supreme level of absurdity. Candidates are not allowed to discuss their judicial views, but voters are supposed to decide who is the best choice? The judgeships often become political rewards.
"Candidates are not allowed to discuss their judicial views, but voters are supposed to decide who is the best choice?"
But isn't this the exact same arguement on the Federal level?
Democrats are constantly screaming 'where do you stand on so and so?', even though they understand that if a candidate answers it could jeopardize either their nomination or taint the outlook on a possible up coming case.
Citzens have elected their local Judges since the inception of the U.S., but Federal and State Justices are generally appointed (through either the Senate or the State Assembly) by the President or Governor.
"The judgeships often become political rewards."
Especially in States controlled by one party.
Not really. You have judicial nominees vetted by the executive and reviewed by the legislature, and most have voting records to get a sense of their views towards jurisprudence.
Whereas a crooked lawyer got elected to the Texas Supreme Court just because his last name was very similar to that of a famous Texas politician.
Democracy is a BAAAAD thing. You need to get that through your head. Democracy is mob rule, something we are altogether too close to.
No it is not. Time to pull out your old high school US government book.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." ;)
They're currently fighting about this in our legislature thanks to the Supreme Court imposing its will on how schools are financed.
The senate is downright PO'ed and is pushing for legislation to require senate approval for justices.
Do you oppose our method of selecting our Representatives?
They are, (slight shudder), democratically elected.
Our US Senators used to be elected by the state legislators.
This was changed by one of the ammendments some time back, and is largely responsible for the current mess we're in.
Remember, Democracy is when you pass laws by public opinion (voting).
Representation is when you elect representatives to make your laws.
Big diffrenece.
Do you long for the day when the common man was cut out of the electoral process?
1. What do you mean by "common man"? All Americans should participate in the electoral process. "One man, one vote", unless you decide not to exercise that right.
2. Election of US Senators by the state legislatures was written into The Constitution from the very beginning. It was only after certain parties decided that the sheeple were more easily fooled did they make an end-run around the legislatures. Look at the circus of Senators that has resulted. Who do you think is responsible for the vast majority of pork barrel (earmarked) projects?
3. If the "common man" were smart, he'd pay more attention to local city and state elections. Remember the saying, "All politics are local."
So you don't have a problem with Democracy?
2. Election of US Senators by the state legislatures was written into The Constitution from the very beginning. It was only after certain parties decided that the sheeple were more easily fooled did they make an end-run around the legislatures. Look at the circus of Senators that has resulted. Who do you think is responsible for the vast majority of pork barrel (earmarked) projects?
I think all Legislation regarding spending originates in the House of Representatives.
3. If the "common man" were smart, he'd pay more attention to local city and state elections. Remember the saying, "All politics are local."
Local govenment is much more democratic than state and federal government.
The common man has little to do with today's government. But it used to be that the Senate allowed state governments to have a certain amount of "veto power" over the federal government. I don't think a state-legislature-appointed Senate would have been too happy about the federal government trying to take away the state legislatures' power.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.