Take it from this retired Kansas judge: An independent bench reinforces justice

A statue representing justice stands at the Kansas Judicial Center, where the Kansas Supreme Court is located, on Feb. 4, 2022. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
This session, the Kansas Legislature voted to send Senate Concurrent Resolution 1611 to voters. This proposed constitutional amendment creates the direct partisan political election of Kansas Supreme Court justices. Such elections would be the death knell of an independent judiciary.
I was fortunate to serve as a trial district court judge for two and a half decades. I was faced with making difficult decisions, but also very unpopular ones. The majority of the Legislature sadly confuses the court of law with the court of public opinion.
Partisan election of judges conflicts with the very essence of the role of the judiciary. A judge has no constituency. A judge must not be influenced by popular opinion. A judge must not be beholden to a political party or a financial campaign contributor. Surely we can all agree we want our judiciary to be fair, impartial and insulated from outside influence.
This distinction of judicial office from legislative and executive positions is recognized by the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct, canon 4. It addresses political activity by a judicial candidate that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary. Rule 4.1 (A)(6) states '(A) judge or judicial candidate shall not, in connection with cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the court.'
A judge has no constituency. A judge must not be influenced by popular opinion. A judge must not be beholden to a political party or a financial campaign contributor.
– Steven Becker
This means no pledges, promises or commitments on gun control, abortion, Medicaid expansion or legalization of cannabis. The Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct explains further the importance of keeping our judiciary above the fray of political campaigns and rhetoric.
'A judge plays a role different from that of a legislator or executive branch official. Rather than making decisions based upon the expressed views or preferences of the electorate, a judge makes decisions based upon the law and the facts of every case. In furtherance of this interest, judges and judicial candidates, must, to the greatest extent possible, be free and appear to be free from political influence and political pressure. … Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject to political influence.'
I suggest the ethical veil distinguishing a judicial candidate from a candidate for legislative or executive office is extremely important but extremely thin.
While serving as a district court judge, I applied twice for a vacancy on the Kansas Court of Appeals. At the time, the selection process was the merit-based system that we currently have for selecting our Supreme Court justices. My efforts were unsuccessful. After going through the interview process and an aggressive background investigation, I willingly admit that candidates better than I were chosen to be considered for appointment by the governor. The merit-based selection system works and has worked for more than 50 years.
The only reason a change to our state constitution is being sought is because the Kansas Supreme Court issued opinions that conflict with the court of public opinion — or the opinion of lawmakers in Topeka.
If court decisions are to align with public opinions, I suggest that our public schools would still be segregated. The independence of our judiciary, free from outside political and ideological influence, is a bedrock to our democracy. An independent judiciary is vital to our government's balance of power with checks and balances.
Steve Becker served as Reno County district judge for 26 years and served as state representative for the 104th District for three terms. 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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

4 hours ago

• Yahoo

Republicans balk at changes to Trump tax bill as deadline nears

WASHINGTON — Senate Republican leaders are in crunch time as they attempt to get all corners of their party to agree on key provisions of President Donald Trump's signature tax bill. The Senate Finance Committee released its long-awaited tax portion of the reconciliation bill on Monday, making a number of changes to the version passed by their House colleagues last month. However, those changes have not been met with open arms by several in the GOP conference — which could threaten its passage if Senate leaders bring it to the floor for a vote next week. One of the thorniest issues tucked into the latest iteration is a proposal to lower the Medicaid provider tax to 3.5%, far below the current 6% tax. That has raised concerns among some lawmakers from states they say rely on that tax to provide health coverage. Medicaid provider taxes are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has been a vocal opponent to paring back the tax, although she declined to elaborate on her current stance. However, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., expressed his frustration with the proposal, arguing it would disadvantage rural hospitals. 'I've talked to our leadership constantly about this. And I was told, we've got a fix on the provider tax issue, we're gonna help rural hospitals,' Hawley told reporters on Tuesday. 'There's nothing in here for rural hospitals. In fact, what they're doing is lowering the provider tax to make it even worse.' It's not clear if that language will be amended before it's voted on. Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said on Tuesday they are 'vetting' the text. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, met with Senate Republicans during their weekly lunch on Tuesday to assuage any concerns on proposed cuts. When asked if there is any chance Republicans will change language related to the provider tax, Oz brushed off those concerns. 'Well, the details of the language are up to the leadership, but the specifics, the framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill,' Oz said. 'It should be in this bill.' Vice President JD Vance also attended the lunch, telling reporters they would 'work through' any concerns with the current language related to Medicaid. 'If we can't address that concern in your preferred way, is there another way that we can fix it,' Vance told reporters. 'That's just part of the legislative process' Meanwhile, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, predicted: 'I don't think it's going to stay in this form.' One of the other politically potent issues tucked into the reconciliation bill is the proposed expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. While House Republicans proposed increasing the cap to $40,000 — with some income limits — the Senate lowered that number to just $10,000, which is the cap currently in place. That provision has already been rejected by the SALT Caucus in the House, which has enough lawmakers to tank the bill if they don't get their requested amount. Crapo said those provisions would continue to be worked out in the Senate and the House, acknowledging 'that's a very big piece, obviously.' 'We will work it out,' Crapo said. Republican leaders must also deal with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has said he would vote against the package so long as it contains language raising the debt ceiling. The Senate version includes language to raise the debt limit to $5 trillion, even higher than the $4 trillion ceiling proposed by the House. 'We roll around to 2026 elections, what are they going to say? 'Oh Democrats, you know, they're for borrow and spend,'' Paul said on Tuesday. 'But now the Republicans will have joined the Democrats in being for borrow and spend.' The text release starts the clock for senators to finalize the package, get it approved by the Senate parliamentarian, and vote on the measure before the end of next week to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline of July 4. The parliamentary process could take several days as each provision must be reviewed by the Senate adviser to ensure they adhere to the strict rules of reconciliation. Once the package passes the Senate, it will then be returned to the House for consideration. From there, Republicans will likely need to convene what is known as a conference committee between House and Senate leaders to negotiate a compromise package in order to avoid a legislative tennis match.

Miami Herald

7 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Senate official rejects food aid cuts proposed by Republicans in megabill

A top Senate official on Friday night rejected a bid by Republicans to slash federal food aid payments as part of their sweeping legislation carrying President Donald Trump's domestic agenda, sending party leaders scrambling to find another way to help offset the massive cost of the bill. The measure passed by the House last month and on track to be considered in the Senate next week would cover part of the cost of extending and expanding large tax cuts by cutting social safety net programs including Medicaid and nutrition programs, including SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. Republicans are moving the bill through Congress using special rules that shield it from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must comply with a rigorous set of budgetary restrictions meant to ensure that it will not add to the deficit. And the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, must evaluate such measures to ensure that every provision meets those requirements. Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, ruled that the SNAP measure, which would push some of the costs of nutrition assistance onto the states, did not. That sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill's cost. She also said Republicans could not include a provision that would bar immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents from receiving SNAP benefits, according to Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. The House-passed bill would require all states to pay at least 5% of SNAP benefit costs, and more if they reported a high rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. That provision was estimated to save roughly $128 billion. Senate Republicans were unsettled by that plan, arguing it would tee up insurmountable budget shortfalls for their states. They softened it, advancing a lower share for states to shoulder than that set forward by the House proposal. On Saturday, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., the chair of the Agriculture Committee, said GOP senators would continue to try to find a way to cut food assistance that complied with Senate rules. 'To rein in federal spending and protect taxpayer dollars, the committee is pursuing meaningful reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to improve efficiency, accountability and integrity,' Boozman said in a statement. He said he was looking at options 'to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, cheered the parliamentarian's decision, saying she had 'made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts.' Several fiscal hawks in the House and Senate have complained that the legislation does not do enough to cut federal spending. With the parliamentarian's ruling, Republicans will have to find another way to slash a huge sum of money that their members also feel comfortable voting for. The ruling was just one piece of a broader review the parliamentarian is conducting of the Republican-written legislation. She was expected to work through the weekend evaluating the measure and instructing Republicans to strip out any provision she deems out of order. Should they fail to do so, Democrats could challenge the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to muster 60 votes to advance it, which would effectively kill it since Democrats are solidly opposed. The parliamentarian also will determine whether Republicans can keep a provision that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, and whether they can use a budget trick that would make extending the 2017 tax cuts appear to be free. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025

Newsweek

9 hours ago

• Newsweek

Donald Trump Calls Green Tax Credits in 'Big Beautiful Bill' 'Scam'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump criticized his own federal budget legislation in a post on Truth Social Saturday. "I HATE 'GREEN TAX CREDITS' IN THE GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL," the president said, adding "They are largely a giant SCAM." The bill, which includes $4.9 trillion package packed with tax breaks, budget cuts and new Medicaid work requirements, made it past the House last month in a close 215-214 vote, with two Republicans breaking ranks to vote "no," Newsweek previously reported. The next hurdle, opposition and infighting in the Senate. Now, Trump has stated even he has problems with outlined initiatives. "I would much prefer that this money be used somewhere else, including reductions. 'Anywhere' would be preferable!" Trump exclaimed. "Windmills, and the rest of this "JUNK," are the most expensive and inefficient energy in the world, is destroying the beauty of the environment, and is 10 times more costly than any other energy," the President explained, adding "None of it works without massive government subsidy (energy should NOT NEED SUBSIDY!). Also, it is almost exclusively made in China!!! It is time to break away, finally, from this craziness!!!" This is a breaking news story. Updates to come.