Regardless of where one is on the political spectrum, open government, open records and transparency are issues that everyone can agree on. When Tom Witt from the Kansas Equality Coalition asked me to speak in favor of transparency in judicial retention elections, I knew that was an issue I had no choice but to embrace.

As a citizen journalist writing as the Kansas Meadowlark for a number of years, I used campaign disclosures in a number of investigations about the appropriateness of government actions. In particular, I often looked at political appointments that seemed to correlate with political contributions.

When Witt approached me about testifying I immediately understood the importance of public disclosure of campaign contributions in judicial retention elections, which was the topic of discussion in the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee Wednesday in Topeka.

I attended the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission meeting last month where Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier asked for an Ethics opinion on whether the existing Campaign Finance Act covered judicial retention elections. While some may say the intent of the existing laws was to cover such elections, the existing statutes are missing specifics about such contests.

The Ethics Commission ruled no statute covered campaign finance regarding judicial retention elections. SB 563 was a reaction to that Ethics opinion.

In speaking about SB 563 on Wednesday I told the Senate panel that good government in Kansas would be served by requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions in judicial retention elections in SB 563, especially the retention of Supreme Court justices.

---

 I was not alone. Four others at the hearing of the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee also spoke in favor of the bill.

Retired Judge Patrick Brazil representing the Kansas Supreme Court cautioned about quick action on Senate Bill 563 introduced to provide campaign disclosures in judicial retention elections:

Regarding the equity concern between judicial retention elections and other elections, one issue that is not addressed is that there is only one cycle in retention elections. There is no primary election. Campaign contribution limits may need to be adjusted to reflect that reality.

… while SB 563 is a good concept, its execution needs some adjustment before passage. The Supreme Court urges extreme caution in this process. Legislation on campaign finance is fraught with the possibility of unintended consequences, and no one wants to do more harm than good in this situation. 

… you may wish to examine the laws of other states for their approach to campaign finance for judicial retention elections. The Court’s overarching consideration is support for openness and full disclosure for all sides of any ballot question, given the public’s right to know who is behind any effort to influence voters.

See Judge Brazil’s written statement.

Thomas Witt, Kansas Equality Coalition:

 

 

 

Thomas Witt, Kansas Equality Coalition, addresses Senate Ethics Committee about judicial retention elections

Our intent is simple: We believe that the Kansas Campaign Finance Act must be broadened to include justices and judges who face retention elections. The intent of SB563 is to require complete disclosure and reporting from justices and judges running for retention, and complete disclosure and reporting from any and all organizations raising and spending money to defeat or support them. Furthermore, SB563 defines, for the purposes of the Campaign Finance Act, all Supreme Court justices, appellate judges, and district judges who stand for retention, as statewide officers.

See Witt’s written testimony.

After Witt’s testimony there was this exchange:

Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau: “Is there no set amount that judges can receive?”

Carol Williams, Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission: “Nothing for Supreme Court, or Appellate Judges. There are limitations on District and Magistrate District judges and their retentions.”

Kay Hale, League of Women Voters of Kansas:

The League of Women Voters is very concerned about this oversight in the Kansas Campaign Finance Act. We are concerned because, as it currently stands, judicial retention campaigns have no spending limitations or reporting responsibilities. With no spending limitations, there exists a strong possibility that large amounts of out-side money from special interest groups would flow into Kansas. …

The League supports S. B. No. 563 and the addition of judicial retention election provisions of the Kansas Campaign Finance Act.

See Hale’s written statement.

Amber Versola, Kansas City Metro NOW

KS NOW believes that this bill calls for the transparency of financial support that our elected officials receive. Specifically, it calls for the transparency in the funding of campaigns to retain or appoint our judges. Without this piece of legislation, Kansas faces a frightening future where judges can be bought. …

A key example of why Kansas needs this legislation can be seen in the “Fire Beier” campaign that a well funded interest group has implemented. The group has bought television, print, and radio ads in an effort to get the people of our state to vote against the retention of Justice Beier in the next election. The group has demonstrated that they harbor animosity towards Justice Beier essentially because she did what she was appointed to do – she voted to uphold the law.

See Versola’s written testimony.

Sen. Dennis Pyle (R, Hiawatha) asked Versola to provide documentation about the “group” she was referring to. Versola replied, “I’d be more than happy to get that to you.”

Update (3/16/2010):  Kansas NOW’s State Coordinator and Lobbyist, Kari Ann Rinker,  provided a reply:

This letter and other attached documentation is in response to a request from the revisor’s office on behalf of Senator Pyle.  …

I have provided copies of Kansans for Life’s press statement regarding their targeting of announced Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier.  …

I believe it is an issue of semantics, whether they “have bought” or “will buy”. 

See Rinker’s written statement.

Two individuals provided only written testimony:

• Joseph N. Molina, Kansas Bar Association. See Molina’s written testimony.
• Callie Jill Denton, JD, Kansas Association for Justice. See Denton’s written testimony.

Senate Ethics Committee Chair Vicki Schmidt closed the meeting:

I respectfully request that we have any amendments ready to go by next Wednesday. We will plan on meeting a week from today to work this bill.

---

Related:

• Kansas panel to vote on rules for judical contests, NTV, Mar. 11, 2010.
• Kansas legislators should act immediately to close a statutory gap that exempts some judicial retention votes from campaign finance laws, Lawrence Journal World Opinion, Feb. 19, 2010.
• Kansas Supreme Court Justice asks Ethics Commission for opinion, Kansas Watchdog, Feb. 18, 2010.

---

Contact: Earl F Glynn, earl@kansaswatchdog.org, KansasWatchdog.org