Judge devotes career to serving the public

Judge David King is the chief judge of the 1st District court, which includes the Leavenworth area. The judge, 56, who resides in rural Leavenworth, has been a district judge since May 1986 and chief judge since 1991. Before that he was an assistant to the county attorney and also had a private practice from 1981 to 1986 in Leavenworth.  


As the Chief Judge of District 1, which covers Leavenworth, what kind of case load do you oversee and handle yourself?
My case assignment is the civil docket. For the most part, these cases involve disputes between private parties arising out of duties created by contracts or imposed by operation of law. As Chief Judge for our judicial district, I am also responsible for making the docket assignments for the other five judges in the district and handling a variety of administrative and management responsibilities for the court.

What inspired you to become a judge and what do you like most about it?
I don't know if “inspired” is the term I'd use. I've always wanted to devote my career to serving the public. Since I was appointed to this position 24 years ago I have been very fortunate every four years that the voters in our judicial district have had confidence that I could carry out the responsibilities of this office and voted to retain me in office. Each day I think about the trust that has been placed in me to carry out the duties of a district judge. From a personal standpoint this is extremely humbling.  From a professional standpoint it is very satisfying.

What is the biggest challenge facing the court and judges today?
There are many challenges facing the judicial branch of government today. I'll mention two of the more important ones.
First, the court is required to handle and increasing work load without additional personnel. In the last 10 years, for instance, my civil case load has increased by 30 percent. Criminal case filings have increased over 31 percent. Yet, because of current budgetary constraints we actually have fewer staff to do this work than we did 10 years ago. So far, we have been able to keep up with the work by increasing productivity and using technology, but these measures have their limits.
The second challenge comes in the form of attacks on judicial independence. The influence of special interest groups that want to shape court outcomes must be resisted. Judges should not be legislators. Judges need to be able to decide cases fairly and impartially according to the rule of law.

What do you think about the petition drive and proposal to have judges elected rather than appointed?
Partisan election of judges is a bad idea. When judges have to run for election, lawyers and special interest groups fund their campaigns. This cannot be good for public confidence in the courts.  
The proposal to elect judges makes false promises. Partisan election of judges will make them less accountable to the public, not more. If we elect out judges there will be no published judicial evaluations and no background checks for judicial candidates.
With the present nonpartisan retention election system all judges are evaluated by members of the public and lawyers. The public's input in this process outnumbers lawyers by a wide margin. Judges' evaluations are available to the public to review to help them decide whether the judge should be retained in office. In addition, all judges must undergo thorough background investigations before they're appointed to office.
Partisan election of judges means the public will have less input into the process of selecting judges. It will concentrate power into the hands of lawyers and leave the public out of the process. Only a lawyer can decide to run for the position.
This year 100 percent of incumbent judicial candidates in the state of Kansas are unopposed.  Voters have no input into their re-election.
With our present nonpartisan retention election system: an equal number of lawyers and non-lawyer citizens vote on judicial nominees, all members of the public can submit their views on all candidates, and all meetings of the nominating committee are open to the public. In addition, all voters get to vote on whether a judge should be retained in office each four years.

As a society and a community do you think we are doing enough to help combat crime and if not, what more can we do?
If we were able to solve the problem of substance abuse it would go a long way to combating crime.
Substance abuse, in one form or another, is a common factor in many criminal cases.
Similarly, it is a factor in many other types of cases where people are in trouble with the law.
Our government does not have enough resources to combat this problem by enforcement measures alone. Our culture has to change its attitudes towards use of drugs and alcohol as well.

– Dale Brendel