How much do Kansas Republicans hate abortion rights? This is how much: They’re willing to turn the Kansas Supreme Court into an expensive, fractious circus that puts politics above justice. That should be the takeaway, anyway, from a proposed legislative resolution that would pave the way to amend the state constitution to allow for the direct election of Kansas Supreme Court justices. The initiative would also allow potential justices to “hold office in a political party or organization and take part in political campaigns.” The proposal was introduced in the Kansas Senate at the request of state Sen. Mike Thompson, the Shawnee Republican. Put in plainer English: The resolution would turn the selection of justices into a political free-for-all. It would pit Republicans against Democrats in a race to see who can raise and spend the most money to put their partisan choices on the bench. Which is a terrible idea, frankly. There are several reasons why. But the first to know is this: The proposal is an anti-abortion bill dressed up in ostensibly democratic judicial reform clothing. We know this because Kansas Republicans have been looking for a way to upend the court’s structure ever since justices ruled in 2019 that the state constitution protects abortion rights. The current process for choosing justices has created the “most progressive” state court in the nation, Attorney General Kris Kobach said in September. (Insert an eye roll here.) “We absolutely have to have a constitutional amendment to change that,” he added. On Monday, the ACLU of Kansas called the new proposal a “power grab” by “increasingly radicalized Kansas politicians.” The direct election proposal “is retaliation against the court for protecting reproductive freedom and education funding,” Micah Kubic, ACLU of Kansas executive director, said in a statement. “Moreover, it is an attack on the voters themselves — who have indicated time and again that they support these rights.” Kansas City Chiefs won’t have to wait long for rematch against Super Bowl LIX opponent February 11, 2025 9:54 AM How does Chiefs’ 2025 Super Bowl loss compare to other big game blowouts? A look back February 11, 2025 12:41 PM Was it heads or tails? What did Kendrick Lamar sing first? Super Bowl prop bets results February 10, 2025 9:41 AM How long will the Chiefs’ 2025 Super Bowl game take? A look at past big games February 9, 2025 5:21 PM Who can say he’s wrong? About more than abortion rights Even if abortion was completely off the table, though, directly electing justices would still be a bad idea. Under the current system, Kansas Supreme Court justices are selected by the governor — who chooses from three names submitted by the nine-member Supreme Court Nominating Commission, which includes two members from each of the state’s four congressional districts. And after they’re appointed, justices face yes-or-no statewide retention elections every six years. It’s a little boring, honestly. But it’s a process designed to elevate good attorneys to the state’s highest court. Kobach doesn’t think so. He said last year the nominating commission is dominated by attorneys, and that attorneys are “disproportionately on the left end of the political spectrum.” Maybe. The alternative on offer is demonstrably a mess. The Brennan Center for Justice has been tracking money in state judicial elections for more than 20 years. During that time, spending has exploded — more than $100 million during the 2021-22 election cycle alone — with nearly half of that coming from “outside interest groups.” Court races will become a competition of who can spend the most money, in other words. And it won’t always be Kansans doing the spending — though we do have a billionaire or two who might be happy to outspend everybody else. Does the name Charles Koch ring any bells? If the money pit of it all wasn’t bad enough, it’s inevitable that judicial elections will become exercises in partisan mudslinging. Just look to North Carolina, where the parties are still battling over a court seat from November’s election. The justices who do win will be sorely tempted to make their rulings based on what is popular rather than what the law actually demands. There will be elections to win, after all, and constituents to keep happy, campaign donors to keep satisfied. Which is a lousy way to protect civil rights. Then again, that seems to be the point of the proposal. Kansas Republicans didn’t get their way on abortion rights in a system that produces justices based on merit instead of political popularity. So they’d rather change the rules of the game.
Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article300078934.html#storylink=cpy