Kansas

This November, five of the seven justices on the Kansas Supreme Court are standing for retention, and many court watchers in Kansas and around the country are anticipating a no-holds-barred election battle. The supreme court on one side and the governor and legislature on the other have been at odds for the last several years over court decisions involving school funding and capital punishment.

In the last few weeks, legislators in two states have passed laws aimed at influencing upcoming supreme court decisions. In Kansas, trouble has brewed between the judiciary and the other two branches, stemming largely from state court decisions ordering the legislature to spend more on public education. Meanwhile, the Republican majority in the North Carolina legislature has instituted retention elections, in place of contested elections, for supreme court justices seeking additional terms.

As has become standard operating procedure in the last several sessions, the Kansas legislature is once again considering proposals to alter the process for selecting the state's appellate judges. Chief Justice Lawton Nuss has spoken out against efforts to end Kansas' merit selection process for appellate judges and has found an ally in O'Connor Advisory Committee member and former Chief Justice of Texas Wallace Jefferson.

The Kansas Supreme Court's long-awaited school funding decision may prevent an all-out legislative assault on the state's courts. On March 7, the high court ruled that funding disparities among the state's school districts violate the state constitution. According to Kansas' attorney general, the court adopted a middle ground.

In a recent opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari in an Alabama death penalty case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the pressures of partisan judicial elections influence judges' decisions in cases involving hot-button issues like capital punishment. Social scientists have examined the question before, and have come to similar conclusions.

Recent efforts to alter the process for selecting Kansas' appellate judges have been covered frequently of late. Supporters of increased funding for public schools are concerned about the impact this effort may have on a school finance case that is currently before the supreme court. Specifically, they worry that Governor Brownback and conservative legislators may be pushing selection changes to "put the court on notice."

Last week, Governor Brownback nominated his chief counsel, Caleb Stegall, to a newly created seat on Kansas' court of appeals, reigniting a war of words between his supporters and detractors. Now, in response to the charge that Brownback pushed for a change in the selection process in order to appoint Stegall to the bench, a member of the judicial nominating commission is speaking out.

Last week, controversy arose in Kansas over Governor Brownback's announcement that he would not release the names of applicants for a court of appeals vacancy. The governor initially rejected a petition requesting that applicants' names be released, but he may be reconsidering that decision. Meanwhile, screening committees in Wisconsin and Florida, established to assist them in recommending potential federal judges to the White House, have differing plans on the confidentiality of applicant names.

Back in March, the Kansas legislature adopted a new process for choosing intermediate appellate court judges in the 2013 session. The governor will make judicial appointments with full discretion, which must then be confirmed by the senate. This process will kick into gear on July 1, but Governor Brownback has announced a new wrinkle: the names of applicants for the judicial position will not be made public.

It has been an eventful week judicial selection-wise in the Kansas legislature. On Monday, the chairman of the senate judiciary committee announced the details of a compromise selection reform proposal for the state’s appellate judges, which the Kansas Bar Association's board of governors rejected on Tuesday. And on Wednesday, the house judiciary committee chair introduced three new proposals aimed at the appellate court.