I write in response to the recent letter urging yes on the “Vote for Supreme Court justices” amendment. Let’s unpack what the reasoning seems to be in the letter and in some of the supporting follow up responses.

The writer implies a cabal of attorneys are making nefarious back room deals regarding choosing a justice. The Supreme Court Nominating Committee has a lawyer from each congressional district selected by a vote of peers in their district. Do we really think the politics of Dodge City lawyers mirrors the politics of Johnson County? Yet, each politically different congressional district has equal representation on the committee. Doesn’t sound like a conspiracy to me. (Know also that other states, including Missouri, use commissions with lawyer majorities.)

Read what non-lawyer commissioner Frances Graves, whose career is with K-State Research and Extension Community Vitality, reported 7-28-26 in the Kansas Register: “Regardless of who appointed us or how we came to serve, politics simply wasn’t part of our work together…. Our discussions focused on experience, integrity, judicial temperament, legal ability and leadership….Commissioners spent hundreds of volunteer hours reviewing extensive application materials, legal writing samples, public comments before conducting hours of public interviews.” This certainly describes a nonpartisan and extremely thorough vetting process. No mention of millionaire attorneys influencing the process.

Senator Ty Masterson, conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate, is quoted in the letter. Here is another perspective on his agenda. He has made it clear that electing Supreme Court justices is a way to overturn issues already decided democratically by Kansas voters. He especially targets two issues. He targets the right of women to make their own health care choices, an issue voters supported overwhelmingly in 2022, and voter supported legislation funding public education. The Marion County Record quotes Masterson: “If we elect our Supreme Court they won’t force you to spend money on schools.” Funding our children’s education and teacher salaries is important and without our impartial Supreme Court rulings Ty Masterson would have left schools underfunded.

Finally, your decision to vote for or against the amendment must be based on agreeing with one of these three decision categories. First, no justice has ever lost a retention vote so knowledgeable Kansas voters are retaining justices based on the facts of the decisions they have made, not on campaign promises. Therefore the merit-based commission selection process is justified and working. (That’s a definite No Vote on the amendment.) Second, you believe Kansas voters are not knowledgeable, and are just checking the retention box, but, on the other hand the same voters are knowledgeable and well informed enough to choose a Supreme Court justice based on campaign promises and campaign ads supported by political party money, wealthy donors, and probably outside dark money PAC funds. So, this choice is made on what campaigning justices say, not what they have done. Third, you believe, as Senator Masterson does, that an elected justice will serve your own political agenda and is a back door to undermining the democracy of already decided voter issues. The last two options, of course, completely politicize the court and eliminate judicial impartiality. The court would now be in the business of making law based on campaign promises instead of being a check and balance on the legislative and executive branches.

While our current selection system may need tweaked, it is not broken and our Supreme Court is serving its constitutional purpose.

VOTE NO

Randy Nichols

Note: FortScott.biz publishes opinion pieces with a variety of perspectives. If you would like to share your opinion, please send a letter to [email protected].