When I accepted an appointment to the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission seven years ago, I expected to learn about judges. Instead, I learned about institutions.
The most effective institutions aren’t built around the people who happen to serve in them. They’re built to endure long after those people are gone.
As Kansans prepare to vote Tuesday, Aug. 4, on whether to change our constitution and the way Supreme Court justices are selected, I’d like to share why serving on the commission gave me confidence in a system designed to evolve over time so that no single governor, administration or group permanently shapes its work.
When I joined the commission, I was the only non-attorney member appointed by the current governor. The other three citizen commissioners had been appointed by then-Gov. Sam Brownback. Over the years, those members completed their service, new commissioners joined, and attorney members rotated as they were elected by their peers across Kansas.
The faces around the table changed. The purpose never did.
Regardless of who appointed us or how we came to serve, politics simply wasn’t part of our work together. Kansas law prohibits commissioners from considering a nominee’s race, religion, sex, political affiliation or a disability.
More importantly, every commissioner I served with genuinely respected that principle. Our discussions focused on experience, integrity, judicial temperament, legal ability and leadership. The question was always the same: Who is best prepared to serve the people of Kansas?
That consistency wasn’t accidental. It was built into the commission’s design. Attorneys elect one commissioner from each congressional district and a statewide chair. The governor appoints four non-attorney commissioners, one from each congressional district. Staggered four-year terms, limited to two terms, ensure that no single administration can quickly reshape the commission.
The checks and balances extend beyond the panel itself. We recommend three finalists, the governor appoints one, and that justice later stands before Kansas voters in a retention election. Responsibility is intentionally shared at every step.
When I first applied to serve, I was a rural mother active in my community who believed the best public decisions are made when people with different perspectives come together around the same table. What I came to appreciate was that good public service also depends on expertise. The commission intentionally combines both.
I’ve served on many hiring committees, and like any committee hiring for a highly specialized position, the commission brings together subject-matter experts and people who represent those the organization serves.
In the case of this body, attorneys evaluate legal reasoning, judicial opinions and professional reputation. Non-attorneys contribute the perspective of the Kansans our courts ultimately serve. Together, those perspectives produce stronger decisions than either could alone.
The work is demanding.
Commissioners spend hundreds of volunteer hours reviewing extensive application materials, legal writing samples, references, background information and public comments before conducting hours of public interviews.
By the time candidates appear before the commission, they are almost always exceptionally accomplished attorneys or judges, making the selection of just three finalists a difficult task.
This is why the claim that the commission is driven by politics does not reflect my experience. I never heard commissioners discuss partisan politics, and I never interviewed an applicant who suggested political connections played any role in the process.
