An amendment could rend the Kansas Supreme Court. This low-key meeting shows what’s at stake.

Outgoing Kansas Supreme Court Justice Marla Luckert passes the gavel to new Chief Justice Eric Rosen during a ceremony at the Kansas Judicial Center earlier this year. A state nominating commission has submitted three judges to fill Luckert's spot. (Photo by Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)

The August vote on Kansas Supreme Court justice selection will affect the course of our shared government and civic life for an age.

That sounds like a big, overarching statement, but it has the benefit of being true. Whether justices for the state Supreme Court will continue to be vetted via a merit-based system — albeit one that includes public retention votes — or be sent to office through statewide elections has implications for abortion care, education funding, LGTBQ+ rights and so much more.

You could watch Kansas jurists grappling with this situation at the commission hearing last week nominating a new high court member. Former Chief Justice Marla Luckert’s retirement opened a spot, and so a new crop of applicants threw their proverbial hats in the ring to serve. Members picked three finalists from the seven; Gov. Laura Kelly will make a final decision.

Commission chairman Terry Campbell talked about the system and its benefits in his opening remarks. It’s worth hearing what he has to say, especially if you’re not sure why Kansas selects judges the way it does and what benefits the process offers.

“You are watching a process that has been placed in place in Kansas for nearly 70 years,” Campbell told the audience. “The voters of Kansas back in the late 1950s adopted a process to try to ensure that we have fair and impartial courts here in the state of Kansas. It’s worked quite well.

“We’ve had a Supreme Court over the years that has reversed both the policies of Democratic governors and the policies of Republican governors. It’s resulted in a process whereby Supreme Court justices are beholden to the people of Kansas and the Kansas Constitution, and not beholden to billionaire donors to fund their election campaigns.”

Online video of the nominating committee and its interviews shows a remarkably open, transparent process.

At the beginning, the committee panelists introduced themselves. Each of the seven Supreme Court candidates spent some 30 minutes answering detailed questions about their approach t0 the law and how they would serve. The committee gave the nominees space to explain themselves fully.

The morning and afternoon sessions of the meetings are available on YouTube. You can sit and watch the entire thing, and if you have the time and inclination, I encourage you to do so. Rather than spending millions of dollars on statewide election campaigns or attacking one another through overwrought ads, the nominees speak positively about their experience and plans.

Watch this system and ask yourself why we don’t use it for more government jobs rather than fewer.

The high court candidates were asked about the amendment and its potential effects. No, they were not asked whether Kansans should vote for or against the measure — the good people of this state will make up their own minds, as they always do. But they were asked how they would grapple with the new system.

Judge Robert Wonnell, who was one of the three final selections, struck a notably cautious note.

“It’s a question and an issue that I cannot control,” he told the panel. “It is something that I would be willing to engage and discuss and collaborate, but 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.

“I think that I would present who I am. I think that I would discuss the independence of the judiciary. I would be able to present what I’ve done, and if it is a an election process, I would hope that that would be something that the voters would be interested in, but as far as any type of engagement of an opponent or something like that? I don’t see myself ever looking towards discrediting anyone else.”

Wonnell’s thoughtful response suggests a hidden issue with popular elections for the Kansas Supreme Court: Qualified people won’t run. Think about it. How many people do you know who would willingly run for public office? Our nation’s orgy of unrestrained campaign spending has made civic service look decidedly unappetizing.

Obviously there are benefits to meeting members of the public and listening to their concerns. Indeed, Supreme Court travels throughout the state to hear cases and do just that. Our state benefits from forums for all of us to hash out our ideas through civic discussion.

But that’s not the same as having to endure withering attack ads — or level them yourself. Just imagine the psychic toll for the candidates, along with their family and friends. Those running for governor or U.S. Congress have girded themselves for multimillion dollar statewide campaigns. Not justices. They face voters through retention elections, but those have remained placid thus far.

Sure, some might relish the prospect. Are those the same people who would relish serving on an impartial Supreme Court?

On the other hand, District Court Judge Carl Folsom sounded accepting, if not necessarily enthusiastic, about the prospect of mounting a campaign.

He told the committee: “If the people of Kansas say that that’s the type of selection that they would like to do, and I’m a member of the court, I would plan to seek reelection in whatever fashion the law allows me to do that. And I would have to go through that process.”

The entire five-hour meeting includes much more of interest. Kansas Reflector senior reporter Tim Carpenter will tackle the exchanges in coming days.

Yet before the campaign over the judicial selection amendment swings into high gear, before our airwaves and email inboxes are plastered with vicious slogans, it behooves us all to listen to those who would be most directly affected. Perhaps we might all want to take a quiet moment, here at the start of summer, to ask what kind of Kansas Supreme Court we want. What kind of people should serve?

If you watch the recent videos of the nominating commission, you just might find some answers.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.