To the editor:

Recently, the Kansas House passed HB 2101, which would replace the nonpartisan Supreme Court Nominating Commission process for appointments to the Kansas Court of Appeals with an “advice and consent” model similar to the federal system. The bill is headed to the Senate. HB 2101 will replace reasoned analysis of judicial qualifications with partisan bickering and lower the quality of the judiciary. HB 2101 is bad for Kansas.

The Supreme Court Nominating Commission provides an invaluable service to both the state government and Kansas citizens by vetting candidates for judicial appointment to ensure that only qualified individuals are presented to the governor. The commission is comprised of both lay and lawyer members who tend to be thoughtful and deliberate individuals that have earned the respect of their peers.

I will not pretend to agree with every appointment or decision rendered by our Court of Appeals. No lawyer or citizen ever does. Nevertheless, the nominating commission has helped maintain ongoing respect for the judiciary. The nominating commission has also helped to strengthen the independence of the judiciary, something that I believe is imperative in a democracy. One need look no further than the federal system to see how potential appointees “politic” in the system proposed by HB 2101.

An open political process is paramount in the legislative and executive branches. Political power and governmental philosophies ebb and flow.

However, we need neutrality in the judicial branch of government. The constitution and the interpretation and implementation of law are too important to ride the waves of current popular opinion.