From time to time groups in Kansas will launch efforts to require the election of judges at either the district court or state level.

A ruling handed down Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court is a reminder of what a slippery slope the election of judges can be.

The court’s 5-4 decision sent a message to elected judges that they must step aside from cases that involve individuals or groups who have contributed to their election campaigns.

The case before the court involved a West Virginia coal company executive who spent $3 million in a successful effort to oust one of the state’s Supreme Court justices and elect someone else in his place. At the time, the coal company was appealing a $50 million jury verdict for having forced a small competitor into bankruptcy. The new justice elected with the help of the generous executive then cast the deciding vote, not once but twice, to throw out the $50 million verdict. The campaign donor got a pretty good return on his $3 million investment.

In any case like this one, it can be argued that the newly elected justice decided the case purely on its merits. But no amount of explaining can take away the appearance that the elected justice was influenced by the campaign donations made to his last — and potentially his future — campaign.

Monday’s ruling was on a split decision, and the four dissenting judges called the ruling hazy. However, the decision puts some legal muscle behind the provision in the judicial code that requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself from any proceeding “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Contributions to election campaigns clearly raise such questions.

Twenty-one states, mostly in the Great Lakes region or the South, currently elect their Supreme Court justices. In many of those states, corporate interests and trial lawyers are exercising their right to influence those elections in increasingly costly campaigns.

Kansas does not elect the members of its Supreme Court or its Court of Appeals, but the state’s 31 judicial districts can choose whether their judges are appointed by merit selection or elected in political balloting. Currently, 117 judges in 14 Kansas judicial districts are elected.

Supporters of judicial elections try to make the case that choosing judges in political elections is more democratic and makes judges more answerable to the voters. However, it also creates the impression, if not the reality, that judges could become more answerable to campaign donors seeking to influence judicial decisions for their own financial or philosophical gain.

Was the West Virginia justice influenced by the $3 million contribution to his campaign? Maybe not, but the message from the U.S. Supreme Court is that it is the judges’ responsibility to make sure there is no question.