LJWorld.com

Topeka — Frank Miller says he's probably like most Kansans when they get ready to vote and see on the ballot the names of judges up for retention.

"I don't know anything about them," said Miller, and he's a state legislator.

But a bill currently before the Legislature that is aimed at shedding light on judges may have gotten a boost because of the controversy over Kansas Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss.

Nuss may soon be under investigation for having spoken about the pending school funding lawsuit while having lunch with two powerful lawmakers.

The incident has angered many legislators because judges aren't supposed to talk about cases privately with interested parties. And it apparently took the threat of media disclosure before Nuss revealed he had discussed school finance with Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, and Sen. Pete Brungardt, R-Salina.

The incident also has opened up the judiciary to claims that few Kansans know how judges are selected and whether they deserve to keep their jobs.

"Why send people to a ballot box either through retention or election, when you have no intention of giving them the information that is needed to vote intelligently?" asked Richard Peckham, an Andover lawyer.

Peckham is chairman of a group critical of the court system called Kansas Judicial Watch.

"Very few people have any idea of the backgrounds, interests, capabilities, philosophies of the judges on our Supreme Court. That is a travesty in a democracy; it cannot be allowed to continue," he said.

Peckham said a lawsuit soon will be filed in federal court challenging portions of the state's judicial conduct code, which he says prevents voters from hearing about a judge's outlook on law and society.

But another move is afoot to try to give voters information, using a judicial performance evaluation program.

Because Kansas has two methods of selecting judges, there would be two different kinds of evaluations.

For judges who are selected and then stand for retention elections, the evaluations would provide information to voters on whether the judges should continue in office.

For judges who are elected in politically contested elections, the evaluations would be made to help the judge improve and wouldn't be made public. Judicial Council officials said the reason to keep those evaluations confidential is that they didn't want publicly funded evaluations used in political campaigns.

Randy Hearrell, executive director of the Judicial Council, said the evaluation measure is currently part of House-Senate negotiations on a number of criminal justice measures.

"It may or may not become law," he said.

But legislators close to the negotiations said they were confident it would be approved by the Legislature.

"The situation with Justice Nuss could factor into that," said Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, who helped move the legislation earlier this session.

Douglas County State District Court Judge Stephen Six said he wasn't familiar with the legislation, but generally favored evaluations.

"I think it would inform the public and also improve judicial performance," Six said.

Six noted that given the different kinds of people that judges interact with - lawyers, court staff, jurors, witnesses - and the wide range of duties, "evaluating a judge on all these areas in a substantive way would be a challenge."