AI-assisted summary

The author argues against the idea that Kansas's merit-based judicial selection process is undemocratic.

The piece contrasts Kansas's system with costly, partisan judicial elections seen in other states like Wisconsin.

The author refutes claims of secrecy, noting that the nominating commission's proceedings are open to the public.

This responds to Attorney Michael J. Patton’s column asserting that the appointment of Kansas Supreme Court justices by the governor, after recommendations from the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, is "undemocratic" because the commission is comprised of five lawyers and four non-lawyers ... ergo ... lawyers control the Kansas Supreme Court at the expense of Kansas electors who are accorded no voice in the process.

Like the U.S. Const

See Full Page