Proposed amendment to require Senate confirmation of judges shot down

defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Optional Member Code

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 33821
Washington DC 20033

310-910-9153

Proposed amendment to require Senate confirmation of justices shot down

By Carl Manning, The Kansas City Star, March 09, 2006

TOPEKA, Kan. - Despite criticism of the Kansas Supreme Court, the idea of requiring Senate confirmation before justices can join the court was shot down Thursday by senators, dealing a serious blow to those wanting to overhaul the judiciary.

Senators voted 22-17 on the proposed constitutional amendment - five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to send it to the House. When introduced last year, 28 senators signed on as sponsors, but six didn't vote for the measure.

"Obviously, some senators had second thoughts. It appears this is an idea whose time hasn't come," said Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, who championed the measure during Wednesday's debate.

He said there's little likelihood of the Senate revisiting the issue anytime soon.

"There would have to be a significant change of heart among several members and given the margin of the vote, that's not likely," said Schmidt, R-Independence.

Many legislators have been upset because the court last year mandated additional funding for public schools, and because it struck down the death penalty in 2004.

A subsequent order forced lawmakers to spend an additional $143 million during last summer's special session where legislators, particularly conservative Republicans, complained the court overstepped its authority.

The Senate confirmation proposal was introduced a month after the court first ordered the Legislature to meet its constitutional obligation by spending more money on schools.

Since 1958, justices have been selected by what's known as a merit selection system. A nominating commission considers applicants and presents the governor three finalists from which to pick one. Justices then face a statewide retention vote every six years.

The failed proposal would have left that system intact, but added Senate confirmation.

Kansas is among 23 states where merit selection is used. Of those, six also require Senate confirmation and two mandate approval by the House and Senate.

Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, initially signed onto the measure. But he voted against it because "it could alter the delicate balance of power" and the confirmation process "could degenerate in a partisan fight like we see in the United States Senate."

Sen. Roger Reitz said he made a mistake signing on as a sponsor without fully understanding the plan.

"I want these bodies separate. The Supreme Court should be left alone to do its thing and we do our thing," said Reitz, R-Manhattan.

As for distaste over the school finance ruling, Reitz said, "We are the heavies because we are the ones who were supposed to provide suitable funding. We didn't do it and the Supreme Court called our hand on it."

Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, called support for the proposal "an overreaction to our discontent with two decisions."

But others saw it differently.

"Judicial activism is in the air and Kansans would like to say something about it," said Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler.

Sen. Jim Barnett, who failed Wednesday to dump merit selection and replace it with gubernatorial appointment and Senate confirmation, voiced his discontent.

"There is going to be a backlash on this court. In addition, I predict there will be a backlash on those elected representatives who stand on the sidelines and allow this court to usurp their authority," said Barnett, R-Emporia.

At the start of the 2006 session, several proposals were offered to change the court, but the confirmation plan was the only one to reach either chamber for debate.

This year, lawmakers are trying to come up with a way to meet the court mandate for more money for schools without raising taxes or cutting state services. The Senate wants to phase in $660 million over three years; the House wants to do the same thing with $500 million.

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.