MLM Counties News. Notices. Need-to-know Information.
Attorneys on both sides of a dispute over the Kansas Supreme Court’s power that threatens the judiciary’s entire budget conceded Thursday that legislators whose actions sparked the conflict also have some oversight of the courts.
The high court heard arguments in a lawsuit challenging a 2014 law stripping the justices of their power to appoint the chief judges for the state’s 31 judicial districts and giving it to local judges. The dispute is receiving national attention because the Republican-dominated Legislature enacted another law earlier this year nullifying the court system’s entire budget through June 2017 if last year’s statute is struck down.
A chief district judge sued the state over the 2014 law, and a Shawnee County judge ruled in September that the law improperly interfered with the Supreme Court’s “general administrative authority” over the judiciary granted by the state constitution. Attorney General Derek Schmidt, a Republican and former state Senate majority leader, appealed.
Schmidt’s solicitor general, Steve McAllister, argued that the Supreme Court’s power is not “exclusive” but shared with lawmakers, and the Legislature already had the power to create chief judgeships. Attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, representing the aggrieved chief judge, conceded that lawmakers could create the job and describe its duties but said the 2014 law directly affects the high court’s ability to supervise lower courts.
“It’s harmful to the administration of justice,” Irigonegaray argued.
The court did not say when it would issue a decision.
Irigonegaray faced his most pointed questions from Justice Caleb Stegall, the only high court member appointed by GOP Gov. Sam Brownback, who signed both laws.
“Distinguish for me why the Legislature has the power to create the position of chief judge but does not have the power to set the manner in which the chief judge is appointed,” Stegall told Irigonegaray. “How can one be OK and one not be OK?”
Irigonegaray said the 2014 law prevents the court from disciplining district chief judges, creating a potentially “chaotic situation” after the current system has worked well for decades.
He also said the funding law enacted earlier this year, potentially nullifying the court system’s budget, was “outrageous.”
“It is an attempt to grab power,” he said.
But Stegall noted that the state constitution gives legislators the power to appropriate state funds and dismissed Irigonegaray’s contention that the judiciary could be force to shut down. The new statute also is on hold because of a lower court order.
“You’re assuming that no one would ever come back and reappropriate money for the judiciary,” Stegall said.
Justice Eric Rosen, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, questioned whether the chief judge who sued has shown that he’s been harmed personally by the 2014 law. All of the court’s members peppered the attorneys with questions, extending a hearing that was supposed to last 40 minutes to nearly two hours.
Justices Dan Biles and Lee Johnson, both Sebelius appointees, said the state constitutional language giving the Supreme Court general authority over the judiciary was part of a 1972 amendment approved by voters to create a “unified” court system. Biles said giving chief judges independence from the Supreme Court could create “fiefdoms.”
Chief Justice Lawton Nuss removed himself from the case after taking responsibility for statements critical of the 2014 law on the court’s behalf.
