Kansans for Life deplores the preferential treatment of the abortion industry in the Sebelius-loaded state supreme court, which:
- undermined citizen-petitioned grand juries conducted against abortionists;
- invented rules to block acquisition of abortion records–but not other sensitive medical files;
- silenced a judge they appointed to watch over abortion records, after he discovered clinic forgery.
Thus, the Kansans for Life political action committee (KFL-PAC) proposed a ‘Fire Beier’ campaign, opposing the retention of the 4 state supreme court justices, especially Carol Beier.
The KFL-PAC also believes that the public will be better served by electing judges in general.
To that end, the 10th District U.S. Circuit Court ruled in 2006 that Kansas ethics rules that prohibit judicial candidates from answering pre-election questionnaires violate the judges’ fundamental free speech rights.
Some argue that judges keep their personal biases in check, and that exposing their judicial predispositions during election campaigns threatens their independence. So says the top judge in Leavenworth, David King, who opposes the upcoming ballot initiative KFL-PAC favors, that will change his county’s judicial selection process to election.
He recently published a lengthy commentary why election of judges does not benefit the public. In defense, he cited that “balanced” evaluations from the Kansas Commission on Judicial Performance are only published for appointed judges, not those standing for election.
However, we dispute the devaluation of the electoral process because it lacks the published opinion from a Commission that recommends EVERY appointed judge and justice be retained!
The Commission justifies its unanimous support for appointed judges and justices almost entirely on the voluntary submission of questionnaires from as few as 2 dozen respondents— or, in one judge’s case, no responses at all!
A misleading and extensive advertising plan to promote retention of all appointed judges and justices began in September.
The radio ads incorrectly indicate that a thorough evaluation by a wide range of citizens is done on EVERY judge and justice, but the information collected about the state supreme court justices is limited to input from certain “inside” attorneys and judges— not jurors as the ads claim. (Read more at previous blog.)