To the editor:

Remember when we took American Government class in high school and learned that our founding fathers set up our government with three separate branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial? Each has a different and essential role. While the Executive and Legislators are directly elected, the Judiciary was intended to serve a different function and needed to be independent from political influence, keeping it fair and impartial.

So think about it. If you should need to go to court, whether as a defendant or a victim, you want the judge to be competent (familiar with the law), honest (not take bribes), fair (give equal consideration), and impartial (not take sides). For example, if you were damaged in an accident or by a product, you want and expect the judge to be influenced by the evidence and facts, not by how much money a company or business has contributed to him/her.

Actually, this is the system that we have in Kansas now. In 1958, Kansans overwhelmingly voted for after the corrupt “Triple Play Scandal” in 1956. (Look it up!) At that time Kansas voters changed our State Constitution to have a nominating Commission of nine people from across the state who would check out the qualifications of anyone seeking to become a Kansas Supreme Court Justice. Five members are attorneys (chosen by attorneys) and four lay persons (chosen by the governor). The Commission makes sure that a potential judge is qualified and competent (knows the Law and has some experience), and a reputation of honesty, integrity, and fairness. Candidates from across the State are included, so rural Kansans are represented. When you consider that nine people on the Commission can agree upon three candidates for the Governor to choose from, you can imagine the scrutiny that has taken place. Every six years we DO vote to keep or dismiss the justices. This merit-based system has worked well for Kansas for nearly 70 years.

Why, then, are we being asked (told) that we should amend (change) our State Constitution? Well, even though four years ago, Kansans overwhelmingly voted that they agreed with the KS Supreme Court’s decision that abortion and women’s health care were allowed in our Constitution, certain legislators don’t like Kansans’ decision, so they want us to change the Supreme Court Judge rules, hoping to get new ones that will rule against our 2024 Kansas voters’ will.

While the idea of direct voting for judges seems appealing on the surface, consider this: anybody off the street with no legal background, could run for judge. If you think our political campaigns are crazy and expensive now, think of what happens when a billionaire decides to spend millions to defeat or elect a judge (like Elon Musk did in Wisconsin this year! And he’s not even a resident there!). Do we want that scenario in Kansas? Do we want decisions in court influenced by whatever company or political party donated the most to a judge’s campaign? Whenever a millionaire or billionaire or a PAC like the Americans for Prosperity (AKA Koch Industries) that sent out those recent postcards, it is not for our “Common Good”; they always expect a return on their “investment”.

The “Right to Vote” nickname for this Amendment is misleading. Our current system works well, “It ain’t broke, so we don’t need to fix it!” That’s why I am voting “NO” to the Amendment question on Aug. 4.

Dee Anne Grummon

Great Bend