By Tim Carpenter, Kansas Reflector
TOPEKA — Johnson County District Judge Robert Wonnell gave thought when applying for a vacancy on the Kansas Supreme Court to the proposed constitutional amendment that could transform the selection of justices serving on the state’s highest court.
He said no one should expect him to transform into a foot-stomping candidate eager to battle rivals with attack ads and make promises about the outcome of issues before the court.
“If I were selected to serve on the Supreme Court, and if the process were to change, I don’t know that I am capable or could become a political animal,” he said.
The amendment on the Aug. 4 ballot would erase the current merit-selection system in place since 1958. The process has relied on a nine-member Supreme Court Nominating Commission to interview applicants and submit a list of finalists to governors. The existing approach in Kansas requires Supreme Court justices to stand for retention after serving one year on the bench. If a majority of votes are cast to retain a justice, that individual remains for a term of six years.
The constitutional amendment advanced by the Republican-led House and Senate would require Supreme Court justices to be chosen through direct election. The commission, with a majority of members selected by attorneys, would no longer have a voice in picking Supreme Court justices.
Wonnell, appointed to the district court in 2015 by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback through the merit-based system, was among three finalists recommended in May by the commission to Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly to assume the seat created by retirement of former Chief Justice Marla Luckert.
“I think that I would discuss the independence of the judiciary,” Wonnell said. “I would be able to present what I have done. But as far as any type of engagement of an opponent or something like that, I don’t see myself ever looking toward discrediting anyone else.”
The nonpartisan commission endorsed Wonnell, Johnson County District Judge Chris Jayaram of Lenexa and Douglas County District Judge Carl Folsom of Lawrence from among seven applicants. Kelly appointed Folsom and Jayaram as district court judges within the past five years.
The 60-day window for Kelly to make the Supreme Court pick means a new justice could be appointed prior to the August vote on the constitutional amendment.
Jayaram, who received the broadest support among members of the nominating commission, said he would never fit the mold of a politician, even if compelled to seek election to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t think I would be a good politician because I like to pride myself on looking at both sides of an issue and trying to make the decision,” he said. “I don’t think that fits neatly into a politician’s box. Frankly, I think it doesn’t serve the judicial branch well to have to be put into that kind of box, where the perception might be that you are beholden to people who might donate to a campaign or a particular interest group or a position.”
He said open elections for Supreme Court justices could weaken public confidence in the idea of an impartial judiciary. Key legislative advocates of the amendment argued direct elections were needed to alter the Supreme Court’s view on abortion regulation and public school spending.
Folsom, who has never sought political office, said if appointed to the Supreme Court and if the constitution was changed he would respect the will of voters and file as a candidate.
“I’m prepared to do that if that’s the law and that’s where the people of Kansas say that they want their justices selected,” he said.
Other applicants for the vacancy on the Supreme Court likewise indicated a willingness to become part of the political process — if necessary.
Kansas Board of Tax Appeals Chair Kristen Wheeler of Wichita, who was among candidates not chosen as a finalist, said she was prepared to build upon her bipartisan relationships to advance prospects at the ballot box. If a member of the Supreme Court, she said, she would fight to hold the job.
“I’m not afraid of running. I’ve run many marathons. Even some ultramarathons, but the reality is that I want this position. I want it badly,” she said.
Lawrence attorney Meryl Carver-Allmond, who also applied for the Supreme Court opening, said she could warm to the idea of stumping for votes.
“I will say I’m not a natural politician. I would call myself more of an appellate nerd than someone that gets out and would be on the campaign trail. But, if it came to that, I would of course be willing to take on the role,” she said.
The prospect of engaging in election campaigns as a Supreme Court justice played into the process of deciding whether to apply for the vacancy, said Douglas County District Judge Amy Hanley.
Hanley said members of the judicial branch understood it was part of the ethical code of judges and justices to set aside personal agendas when deciding cases.
“The judicial canons make it very clear that we are to separate our personal opinions,” she said. “A judge may not allow any personal, political, family, financial or religious view to impact your decision.”
Molly McMurray Gordon, a federal prosecutor in Wichita and applicant for the Supreme Court seat, held a similar view: “Anyone who really wants to do this job, and would do a good job at it, does not want to be a politician.”
She added: “Politicians go out there and talk about the policies that they want. They make promises about the things that they would do. That’s not the role of a Supreme Court justice.”
