« Ind. Courts - "Woman tried to sabotage her boyfriend's armed robbery trial by pretending that she worked at the Tippecanoe County prosecutor's office" | Main | Law - "The Student Loan Racket: Now in One Easy-to-Understand Graphic " »
Monday, September 13, 2010
Courts - Still more on "Lawsuit seeks to change how Kansas Supreme Court judges are appointed"
Updating earlier ILB entries (the most recent here, from Aug. 29, 2010) re the suit challenging the Kansas method of selecting appellate court judges (that is strikingly similar to Indiana's - see the end of the Aug. 29th entry), Roxana Hegeman of the AP reported Friday:
WICHITA | A federal injunction that would block Kansas from filling a seat on its Supreme Court would cause an indefinite halt to the judicial nomination process in the state, attorneys told a judge Friday as they tried to discredit a lawsuit that challenges how Kansas fills those vacancies.U.S. District Judge Monti Belot heard arguments as he mulls whether to grant an injunction sought by four Kansas residents who filed a lawsuit against attorney members of the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission. The lawsuit claims that Kansas employs an unconstitutional method for replacing judges, in part because it gives too much power to attorneys — who make up the majority of commission members — and therefore violates the rights of other residents.
The lawsuit seeks to stop the state from filling a vacancy created when Kansas Chief Justice Robert Davis retired on Aug. 3, a day before he died. * * *
The lawsuit in Kansas was filed by Indiana-based attorney James Bopp Jr., who last year represented three Alaska voters who challenged a similar selection process in that state. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in a decision that has been appealed.
In recent years, judicial selection has been an important issue mainly for conservative Republicans upset with Kansas Supreme Court decisions on abortion and education funding. They contend a lawyer-dominated selection process results in liberal-leaning justices.
Voters decide every six years whether a Supreme Court justice is retained. Since that process began in 1960, no member of the state's highest court has failed to get a two-thirds majority.
As a practical matter, the state's judicial nomination process is tantamount to a tenured appointment, Belot said Friday.
In a court filing, attorneys for the defendants said the request by end a process in use for half a century "is breathtaking for its audacity" and "inappropriate on its face."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 13, 2010 09:10 AM
Posted to Courts in general