Blackmail is a strong word, a word that Kansans certainly wouldn’t want to have attached to actions of their elected state representatives.

And yet, that word comes dangerously close to describing the approach some members of the Kansas Legislature are taking toward the bill that funds the state’s judicial branch.

Last year, legislation that tied funding for state courts to several policy changes was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Brownback. Among those changes were provisions that removed the Kansas Supreme Court’s authority to name chief judges and oversee budget allocations in the state’s district courts. Proponents called the shift a matter of local control, but opponents, including some state judges, saw it as a possible violation of the Kansas Constitution which says, “The supreme court shall have general administrative authority over all the courts in this state.”

In response, a lawsuit arguing that the law was unconstitutional was filed in February by Larry Solomon, chief judge for the state’s 30th Judicial District. That lawsuit currently is pending in Shawnee County District Court.

Undeterred by the legal action, state legislators have decided again this year to tie the new system for selecting chief judges into the same bill that contains funding for the judicial branch. If the Shawnee County District Court finds the selection process to be unconstitutional, the entire law — including the funding to keep the courts operating — would be thrown out.

So the district court can either agree with the Legislature and the governor on the selection process or it can take action that throws out that process — along with state funding for its own court and the rest of the judicial branch.

Sen. Jeff King, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, doesn’t see this as a problem. It’s legitimate to tie the policy decision to the budget, he argues, because if the policy is changed, legislators also will need to review the budget. Why? Changing the policy shouldn’t have an impact on how much money the state courts need to operate. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to change the budget, unless legislators want to consider punishing the court for making a decision they don’t agree with. King also didn’t address how budget changes would be made if the court strikes down the law when the Legislature isn’t in session.

Maybe blackmail isn’t the right word for what the Legislature is doing to the judicial branch. Maybe “power grab” would be a better term. Either way, lawmakers are trying to alter the roles, responsibilities and fundamental balance of power among the state’s three branches of government. Their action also feeds the perception that they are trying to punish state courts for school finance decisions that have forced the state to increase spending for K-12 schools — decisions based on the constitutional requirement that the Legislature “shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.”

If legislators and the governor think the Kansas Constitution is wrong, they should tackle that issue head-on and seek to change it — not use budget blackmail to try to force the state’s independent judiciary to change its mind.