|
|
|
Quick 5 Questions for Donna Gillett
After a study of the Kansas judicial selection system, Donna Gillett of Leavenworth initiated a petition to put the question of electing judges on the ballot in the 1st Judicial District.
1 You were involved in the petition drive to get the election of judges issue placed on the ballot for the November election. Please explain what the ballot question is.
The ballot question allows voters to vote “yes” to elect their district court judges or “no” to continue to have their judges appointed for them.
2 What is wrong with the current system used to appoint judges?
It violates basic equality among citizens, the principle of “one person, one vote.” The current system rests on elections open only to members of the bar, that is, lawyers. These elections, for the lawyer-members of the Nominating Commission, make a lawyer’s vote worth more than another citizen’s vote. It elevates lawyers into a tiny elite and reduces the rest of us to an unacceptable status of second class citizen.
Lawyers defending this elitist selection system often assert that it is offset by the “elections” used to retain sitting judges. In fact, however, retention elections are rubber stamps because no candidate is allowed to challenge the incumbent.
Retention voting appears to involve the public, but actually serves more as a way for the bar to distract the populace from the initial selection of judges, which is where the real action is.
It follows that sitting judges are retained 98.9 percent of the time essentially having a job until the mandatory age of retirement.
Few citizens have the time to research the money flow in the appointment system. One must follow newspaper timelines to find which lawyers applied to the Nominating Commission, the date three lawyer names are forwarded to the governor for appointment, and then go through the Federal Election Commission to see which lawyers up for appointment contributed directly to the governor or the governor's party prior to getting appointed. This happens and there is no law against it.
3 Why would the proposed popular election system be better?
First, with popular elections a lawyer’s vote will no longer be worth more than any other citizen’s vote. Second, with popular elections, everything is out in the open. Any contribution of $50 or more is on public record at the courthouse. By contrast, our current system hides politics behind closed doors. It substitutes the politics of the bar for the politics of the citizenry.
Quick 5 Questions for Donna Gillett
After a study of the Kansas judicial selection system, Donna Gillett of Leavenworth initiated a petition to put the question of electing judges on the ballot in the 1st Judicial District.
1 You were involved in the petition drive to get the election of judges issue placed on the ballot for the November election. Please explain what the ballot question is.
The ballot question allows voters to vote “yes” to elect their district court judges or “no” to continue to have their judges appointed for them.
2 What is wrong with the current system used to appoint judges?
It violates basic equality among citizens, the principle of “one person, one vote.” The current system rests on elections open only to members of the bar, that is, lawyers. These elections, for the lawyer-members of the Nominating Commission, make a lawyer’s vote worth more than another citizen’s vote. It elevates lawyers into a tiny elite and reduces the rest of us to an unacceptable status of second class citizen.
Lawyers defending this elitist selection system often assert that it is offset by the “elections” used to retain sitting judges. In fact, however, retention elections are rubber stamps because no candidate is allowed to challenge the incumbent.
Retention voting appears to involve the public, but actually serves more as a way for the bar to distract the populace from the initial selection of judges, which is where the real action is.
It follows that sitting judges are retained 98.9 percent of the time essentially having a job until the mandatory age of retirement.
Few citizens have the time to research the money flow in the appointment system. One must follow newspaper timelines to find which lawyers applied to the Nominating Commission, the date three lawyer names are forwarded to the governor for appointment, and then go through the Federal Election Commission to see which lawyers up for appointment contributed directly to the governor or the governor's party prior to getting appointed. This happens and there is no law against it.
3 Why would the proposed popular election system be better?
First, with popular elections a lawyer’s vote will no longer be worth more than any other citizen’s vote. Second, with popular elections, everything is out in the open. Any contribution of $50 or more is on public record at the courthouse. By contrast, our current system hides politics behind closed doors. It substitutes the politics of the bar for the politics of the citizenry.
4 How do you respond to the argument that partisan elections of judges could attract the influence of special interest groups?
The current system is firmly captured by a single powerful special interest group, the bar. If you’re naïve, then you’ll fall for the bar’s claim that they’re all about selecting the best people for judgeships, regardless of politics. But if you’re realistic about human nature, then you understand that politics will always play a role in the selection of something as important as a judgeship. The only question is whether you want the politics out in the open where all citizens see what different groups are advocating, or whether you want to keep politics hidden in the backroom where only lawyers’ special interests count.
5 Please describe the petition drive process used to get the question placed on the ballot and explain how you became involved.
Eighteen citizens — independents, Democrats and Republicans, including precinct committee men and women from both major parties — circulated the petition and delivered more than twice the number of signatures required to the Secretary of State’s office prior to the deadline.
There are several reasons why the group initiated this petition. When a special interest group like the Kansas Bar can cause a tax to be levied on citizens without them knowing it, to fund a never before needed Kansas Commission used to legitimize the appointment system, and which gives a “retain” rating to every single judge up for retention, it is time for us to vote yes to join the half of our counties that elect judges just like we do our legislators and governor.
Appointing judges is extremely expensive to Kansans who are unaware that since 2007 they have paid an additional tax to fund this Commission — $856,246 in 2009. The Bar wanted the Commission so they should fund it — not the taxpayers. It is time for the people to take back our courts by electing judges.
