The state’s Commission on Judicial Qualifications has had what should be the last word concerning the ethics complaint filed against Kansas Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss.

On Friday, the commission admonished Nuss for violating the code of conduct for judges and justices by discussing the state’s school finance legislation with two state senators. Although the commission’s decision has been portrayed as merely a slap on the wrist, it is the strongest action the body could take short of recommending additional disciplinary action, such as censure or suspension, by the state Supreme Court. The commission’s warning, coupled with the publicity grinder through which Nuss has passed in recent months, seems sufficient punishment for a conversation that had no practical consequences for state policy.

The question now is whether members of the Kansas Legislature will let go of this issue and move on to more constructive business. Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, is the voice of reason on this topic. “It’s always seemed to me that the proper venue to figure out what really happened was the qualifications commission, and it seems they’ve done that. It seems to me the fact-finding is now complete.”

Unfortunately some fellow legislators disagree. “When you look to the courts as an institution to police themselves, you’re usually disappointed,” said Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler. On the contrary, the qualifications commission thoroughly investigated the matter, including calling witnesses who had refused to testify before a House committee investigating the matter.

Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, a member of that House committee, has developed a theory that could strike some Kansans as a bit paranoid. Although the commission’s action may seem appropriate to people who perceive the Nuss lunch as a one-time event, Kinzer said, the investigation leaves unanswered the question of whether there were multiple attempts by the court or its employees to influence the Legislature’s debate over school finance.

The only apparent evidence Kinzer has of such a conspiracy are statements from three senators who said Senate President Steve Morris told them he’d had contact with a court employee concerning the school finance issue. Both the court and Morris have consistently maintained that the lunch with Nuss was the only contact between the court and legislators. If the House committee continues its investigation, it seems its main target would have to be the truthfulness of the Senate president.

According to the judicial ethics code, the lunch conversation clearly was a mistake. As a result, Nuss removed himself from the school finance case and has been admonished by his peers. That should be the end of it. Any effort to try to further press this case for political purposes would be pointless and harmful to the state.