judgesonmerit.org

We’ve been following the efforts of Johnson County, KS to maintain its local Merit Selection system in the face of an upcoming referendum to replace the system with partisan elections.  The Shawnee Dispatch offers an analysis of the views of those supporting and opposing the ballot measure.

Tim Kolba of Kansas Judicial Review, the group advocating for the elimination of the Merit Selection system claims that “left-leaning attorneys” dominate the current process.  Greg Musil, working with Johnson Countians for Justice — the group seeking to defeat the change and preserve Merit Selection — says Kolba and Kansas Judicial Review are motivated by a desire to get more conservative judges on the bench.

Gavel Grab is following the situation in Johnson County closely, and we will continue to do so as well.  For now, suffice it to say that we think that the key issues are how to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the bench and how to keep judges out of the fundraising business.  The answer is Merit Selection.

In November, voters in Johnson County, Kansas, will decide whether to replace their system of Merit Selection with partisan elections. An editorial from the Lawrence (Kansas) Journal-World, critically analyzing the proposed change, hits the nail on the head:

The proponents of the Johnson County change say partisan elections would make judges more accountable to the public. That may be true, but while judges are public servants, their job actually requires their first loyalty to be to the law, not to the constituents they serve. Making judges more directly accountable to the voting public creates at least the appearance that a judge’s decisions, which should be focused purely on the law, might be influenced by those who financially supported the judge’s campaign.

Money should play no role in judicial decision-making. But requiring judges to run expensive election campaigns creates the impression that money matters — not just in getting elected, but maybe even for what happens after the judge takes the bench. This undermines public confidence in the courts and impairs the ability of the court system to stand as a trusted, independent third branch of governent.