Johnson County Kansas voters will decide in a November ballot whether their district court judges will be elected, or whether the judges in the 10th Judicial District will continue to be appointed.
While the public debates how district court judges will be put in office, the current 10th Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commission is working through the process of replacing a retiring judge.
Late last week this Nominating Commission chose three candidates for final selection by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.
The selection of this new judge shows just how flawed, political and biased the current selection system is. The three candidates for consideration by Gov. Sebelius are:
- David Wesley Hauber, Shawnee, Democrat. Contributed $250 to Sebelius in 2006, $250 to Sebelius in 2002, $500 to Jim Slattery for Governor in 1993 (Slattery is now running for U.S. Senate). Wife, Catherine, Democrat, donated $250 to Paul Morrison for Attorney General in 2006. Open Secrets says Hauber gave $1250 to Judy Hancock (D) for Congress, and $750 to Dennis Moore for Congress. Wife, Catherine, gave $500 to Dennis more and $300 to Judy Hancock. Oddly, in 2006 Haber argued in Douglas County District Court to allow price gouging by tow companies in Lawrence, and apparently saw nothing wrong with a $1500 fee to a tow company for a woman to get her car back.
- Robert J. Bjerg, Lake Quivira, Democrat. Contributed $1000 to Sebelius in 2006, and in three contributions in 2005-2006 gave Paul Morrison $2000. [Morrison resigned from Kansas Attorney General in disgrace in Dec. 2007, serving in office only since January 2007.] Wife, Susan, Democrat, attended liberal ‘Take Back Kansas’ event in Jan 2006 and was quoted: “We came because we feel like we don’t have a voice over there” in Johnson County.
- James Phelan, Overland Park, Democrat. No known political contributions. Wife, Vicki, Democrat, has no known political contributions. Phelan was appointed in Dec 2002 to be a magistrate judge in the 10th Judicial District.
Nominee Bob Bjerg is a member of the Steering Committee of “Justice, Not Politics!,” which is the group pushing for no change in how judges are selected. This group apparently does not want to give up the power of the bar association since they control the judicial nominating process. This group fears elections of judges by citizens because of contribution conflicts of interest.
Oddly, this group sees no conflict of interest in the political money given by nominating committee members, or those nominated to be judges. Do Bjerg’s contributions, $1000 to Sebelius and $2000 to Morrison, not have any impact on his selection? Don’t these contributions telegraph to Gov. Sebelius that he is a “safe” nominee? The press routinely does not reveal such contributions in reports of the judicial nominations or appointments.
Ironically, the judge being replaced, Judge Janice Russell, is also a member of the Steering Committee of “Justice, Not Politics!”
According to voter registration data from the Kansas Secretary of State in late January 2008, Johnson County only has 21.12% Democrats. If each judicial selection had a 21.12% chance of selecting a Democrat, the chance of selecting Democrats as all three candidates would be less than 1%. The selection of three Democrats did not just happen by chance.
The current process in Johnson County badly needs reform and election of judges, which is common in other states, is one good solution.
Related Links:
- Kansas Plans to Shake Up State Court Judges, Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, May 14, 2008.
- When lawyers control the judges, Phyllis Schlafly, WorldNetDaily, May 9, 2008.
- Pool of 10th District judge candidates narrowed to three, Olathe Daily News, May 9, 2008.
- Panel selects candidates for district judge, Kansas City Star, May 8, 2008.
- The Cheesehead Solution: Judging the court, Kansas Liberty, April 7, 2008.
- Updated Political Profile of Members of the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission: Still 6 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 1 Republican for Moore, Kansas Meadowlark, Dec 16, 2007.
- Selection to the Kansas Supreme Court, Stephen Ware, University of Kansas Law School, Federalist Society, Nov 26, 2007.
Tags: David Wesley Hauber, James Phelan, Judicial Nominating Commission, Kathleen Sebelius, Paul Morrison, Robjert J. Bjerg
In 2005, two court cases that caught the public’s attention and the president’s choices for new Supreme Court justices made the judiciary a political fireball, prompting an intense debate on how judges should operate.
The Terri Schiavo case turned on who, if anyone, had the legal right to allow Schiavo, who was ruled by lower courts to be in a “persistent vegetative state,” to die. Despite attempts from Republicans lawmakers and President Bush to intervene by passing a law pertaining to the case, the Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear the matter and she died days after her feeding tube was removed.
Many members of Congress were livid and their criticism troubled O’Connor.
“It was asking for review of one specific case,” she said. “That’s so unusual. Usually laws are passed that govern a category of matters for courts to decide, not case by case. …
“It then came to this court and that resulted in a great deal of unspoken sentiment — unhappy with the courts for how they had dealt with it.”
A second case that raised public hackles involved the right of local governments to seize private land for private development. In general, under a practice known as “eminent domain,” a person’s property may be condemned and the land converted for a greater “public use,” like highways, schools, or revitalizing blighted areas.
In this case, however, a well-kept residential neighborhood was being forced to make way for a private shopping development.
The Supreme Court narrowly concluded that local governments could use eminent domain to seize private land to use for private economic development, if the seizure was for a greater public purpose.
Critics said judges were injecting their beliefs into decisions best left to the legislative and executive branch.
They called it “judicial activism” and called for a check on the fundamental business of the courts.
“Quite frankly, the judiciary could use an inspector general,” Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican and member of the Judiciary Committee, told CNN.
O’Connor disagrees, saying a new regulatory system is an odd concept to her.
“I just think it might lead to some, unfortunate relations between the branches of government,” she said.
The third dynamic came when the president chose two judges, Chief Justice John Roberts to replace the late William Rehnquist and Justice Samuel Alito to replace O’Connor.
But a seven-month debate filled with endless issue ads, rallies, and Web postings from conservatives and liberals only fueled the partisan tone of the nominations, polarizing an already divided electorate.
“The system has gotten more political,” said Thomas Goldstein, an attorney and Supreme Court legal analyst. “But we fortunately haven’t gotten to the point where the process has completely broken down.”
The system, while shaky, still works, he said.
Some conservatives believe many judges have become too sensitive to criticism.
In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, federal appeals court Judge William Pryor called current complaints against the courts “relatively mild” compared to the past. His solution?
“Judges must do more than respond to criticisms; we must exercise restraint,” he wrote. “Judges have a unique responsibility to safeguard our independence. It is not too much for us to look in the mirror and ask whether some criticisms are fair.”
O’Connor believes it is extremely important to try to maintain a stellar perception of the American legal system around the world.
“We espouse the notion in this country, and around the world, that our best hope for peace is having all nations abide by the rule of law,” she said. “And our federal courts have been a rather good example for other nations around the world.
“And to see our courts now, under such serious attack, is a concern to me.”
Breyer argued it was the intent of the nation’s founders that the judiciary — an independent group insulated from politics — should be the final arbiter on matters of law.
“The best guarantee that minorities will not be oppressed, that the Constitution will be lived up to, is to give that very last word — under narrow circumstances — to a group of judges,” he said.
“Someone has to have the last word.”