Topeka ? When an elected official resigns after switching political parties, the switch does not affect who picks a successor, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Justices were unanimous in deciding a case arising from the resignation of Shawnee County Treasurer Rita Cline. She left office in March amid allegations that she misused county funds.

She was re-elected as a Democrat in 2000 but switched parties the next year. Both parties’ county organizations claimed the right to nominate a successor for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to appoint, and Democrats filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court.

A similar dispute arose in Woodson County, where former Sheriff Mike Hinnen resigned for personal reasons, also after switching to the GOP. Sebelius’ office filed a lawsuit in district court there.

State law does not say which affiliation governs, but the court concluded that common sense dictates that “the will of the electorate at the preceding election controls which party fills the vacancy.”

“In doing so, the mandate of the preceding election is protected and continued until the next general election,” Justice Donald Allegrucci wrote for the court. “Such construction is consistent with the election process.”

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, was pleased by the court’s ruling and plans to fill both vacancies quickly, said spokeswoman Megan Ingmire.

“The choice of voters has prevailed,” Ingmire said.

But House Speaker Doug Mays, R-Topeka, said the decision contradicts his reading of the law.

“Most people would say they were voting for the person,” Mays said. “I don’t think strict party loyalty exists to the extent it once did.”

He called the court’s ruling “a loose interpretation.”

“They’ve made their own law, which is something this group has not done much of in the past,” he said. “I guess I’m disappointed.”

Mays said he was not sure legislators would attempt to change the law because the issue was not likely to come up frequently.

“I’m sure the time will come that the Democratic Party will be sorry that the ruling came down,” he said.

The justices did not deal with a challenge to the appointments law raised by Democrats’ attorney, however. Those attorneys said the law was invalid because it improperly gave a nonrepresentative group of people — a party’s county or district committee — the power to fill vacancies, and the governor has no discretion.

The justices noted that appellate courts throughout the United States “generally avoid making unnecessary constitutional decisions.”

In challenging the law’s constitutionality, Democrats had hoped to give the governor the authority to fill vacancies on her own. That was generally the practice after statehood in 1861.

The exception was legislative vacancies, where state law originally called for special elections. In 1947, the state adopted the practice of having precinct committee members pick successors when a House or Senate member resigned.

The current law, enacted in 1972, extended that practice to county and other “district” offices. The governor still fills vacancies in statewide offices and U.S. Senate seats; vacancies in the U.S. House are filled by special elections.