One of the worst things about this August’s ballot measure to elect members to the Kansas Supreme Court is that Kansans are being led to believe the sitting court is inept — or worse, corrupt — because they were appointed, and not elected, to their positions.
By that yardstick, every government, from city to state to national, would be deemed untrustworthy because the vast majority responsible for turning the wheels are selected for their talents.
And, in reverse measure, those elected should be held in highest esteem for their supposed superior intellect.
I challenge you to show me a county commissioner who knows more about Allen County’s airport than its manager, Robert Poydack; a city council member who knows the intricacies of selling municipal bonds to finance new infrastructure better than city administrator Matt Rehder; a Kansas legislator who knows as much about the budget than Adam Proffitt, state budget director, or a U.S. Senator who knows how to manage interest rates better than Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve.
It’s because these people have dedicated their careers to a specific field — and not to running for public office — that they are so valuable.
The August ballot measure would have us believe otherwise.
It reads: “The citizens of Kansas who are qualified electors shall elect the justices of the supreme court.”
I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel qualified to elect a justice of the Kansas Supreme Court.
I’ve never studied law, and I don’t begin to know all the protections guaranteed under the Kansas Constitution, which in my editor’s opinion is overly wordy.
The Aug. 4 measure also opens the barn door wide open to money.
Money influences who gets elected, today more so than ever.
In the case of the Kansas Supreme Court, those who wish to change the state constitution on how property taxes are levied, for example, could infuse bucketloads into the campaigns of fellow sympathizers.
In a flash, voters would be inundated with fliers, emails, phone calls and text messages promoting John or Jane Doe as the best candidate.
We see it every election, thanks to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that allows unlimited campaign contributions by corporations and other outside groups.
The current system of using merit as the deciding measure of would-be justices, works.
The process begins with a nine-member nominating commission consisting primarily of attorneys that culls through dozens of nominees before deciding on three, which they forward to the Governor, who ultimately decides.
