Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Kansans voted to keep their judges. But the state's high court will once again be in spotlight.
Topeka Capital-JournalWhen voters in November elected to keep the current composition of the state's appellate courts intact, it caused supporters to breathe a sigh of relief.
The peace, however, may well be short lived.
Lawmakers are expected to again consider changes to the state's selection process for Kansas Supreme Court justices when they return in January, a topic that will be more charged than ever as Republicans seek to lay the groundwork for an eventual reversal of a landmark case establishing state constitutional protections for abortions.
The bulk of the court earned new six-year terms with their triumph in November, though the state-mandated retirement age of 75 looms for some of the justices within the next decade.
The peace, however, may well be short lived.
Lawmakers are expected to again consider changes to the state's selection process for Kansas Supreme Court justices when they return in January, a topic that will be more charged than ever as Republicans seek to lay the groundwork for an eventual reversal of a landmark case establishing state constitutional protections for abortions.
The bulk of the court earned new six-year terms with their triumph in November, though the state-mandated retirement age of 75 looms for some of the justices within the next decade.
Lawmakers have considered whether to move towards a model that resembles the way U.S. Supreme Court and federal judges are picked, where the governor would select a nominee who would then need to be confirmed by the Kansas Senate.
Another option would be partisan elections for judges; an option used in eight states. Or, legislation already introduced by Rep. Brett Fairchild, R-St. John, would make it easier to impeach and remove justices for certain offenses.
"I'd like to see us move toward the middle of the road more like the federal model that we discussed," Sen. Mike Thompson, R-Shawnee, said. "And I think it would serve the state a little bit better and give people more voice in the process."
Another option would be partisan elections for judges; an option used in eight states. Or, legislation already introduced by Rep. Brett Fairchild, R-St. John, would make it easier to impeach and remove justices for certain offenses.
"I'd like to see us move toward the middle of the road more like the federal model that we discussed," Sen. Mike Thompson, R-Shawnee, said. "And I think it would serve the state a little bit better and give people more voice in the process."