Topeka ? A legislative committee Friday decided to make no recommendation on the hot-button issue of whether to change the way Kansas Supreme Court justices are selected.

The controversy, however, is bound to be debated during the 2006 legislative session that starts in January.

Several lawmakers, unhappy with recent court decisions in overturning the death penalty and ordering more school funding, have sought to make Supreme Court justices run in contested elections or be subject to state Senate confirmation.

Either proposed change would require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature and a statewide vote to amend the state Constitution.

Currently, a nominating commission screens judicial applicants and presents a list of three candidates to the governor, who then makes an appointment from that list. Justices then run for retention election every six years.

Retired Supreme Court justices, including Fred Six, of Lawrence, legal associations and voter groups urged lawmakers to keep the system as it is, saying it allowed the judiciary to stay independent by keeping politics and special interest campaign money out of the selection process.

Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, and a member of the judiciary committee, agreed.

“I think we have absolutely the best system in the world in selecting justices in Kansas,” he said.

But Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, said, “There is politics in the selection process on different levels and behind different doors.”

He said the public didn’t have enough input in the screening process because the nominating commission was made up of five lawyers and four lay people.

Karl Peterjohn, executive director of the Kansas Taxpayers Network, said in recent years that the state Supreme Court has expanded its authority while becoming more insulated from the public.

“It raises the risk that the rule of law is in the process of metamorphosing into the rule of seven black-robed lawyers,” he said.

But others said the selection process protected the justices from the political fray, enabling them to follow the rule of law even if that is against the public will.

“Judges cannot protect those who are minorities or unpopular if the judges are beholden to the political pressures of the majority, or to the necessity to raise campaign money from the rich and powerful,” said Richard Hayse, president of the Kansas Bar Assn.

But several lawmakers said the retention election process was a sham because it is nearly impossible for citizens to get information about a judge that is on the ballot to be either retained or taken off the bench.

“Trying to find out something about a judge is like trying to find a tooth in a hen’s mouth,” said Sen. Kay O’Conner, R-Olathe.

Davis and other supporters of the current system agreed that is a problem and a process of providing evaluation of judges is needed.