To the editor:

I read with interest the op-ed piece in Thursday’s paper by Professor Ware. Professor Ware argues that the current process for selecting nominees (final appointments are made by the governor) to our state’s appellate courts should be changed. His rationale is that it is “undemocratic.”

Typically those who press for a change in the status quo must convince the public that there is a need for change. Professor Ware makes no argument that the court is ineffective, unjust or incompetent. In fact, Professor Ware cites no specific problem with the court as constituted. The absence of evidence is evidence of its absence. As such it is fair to assume that the process which has served Kansans well for decades continues to do so.

If Professor Ware is concerned about “undemocratic” processes, he might turn his attention to the Electoral College or to the voting process in America where the management of elections is conducted by partisan politicians, where proven abuses and “undemocratic” actions are well documented.

The current selection process has produced a judiciary of high quality. Before we consider suggestions to change that system, there must be a compelling argument that the current process has failed in its goal of selecting honest, credible and effective judges and in turn a good judiciary.