Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Kansas needs citizen-powered democracy

    Following is an op-ed by Paul Jacob that recently appeared in the Wichita Eagle, although this is the version he sent to me. Jacob is president of Citizens in Charge Foundation, a national organization that promotes the rights of initiative and referendum. The citizens of Kansas enjoy neither of these.

    Fort Hays State University Professor Chapman Rackaway is entitled to his opinion that “Voter initiative sounds good but is bad idea” (September 14 Wichita Eagle), but not to make up his own facts to buttress this viewpoint.

    Rackaway uses inaccurate claims about California’s initiative process to argue against Republican Secretary of State candidate Kris Kobach’s popular proposal to allow Kansans to petition issues onto the ballot for a statewide vote.

    It’s instructive that the professor focuses on far away California, ignoring the states surrounding Kansas — Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma — all with voter initiatives. Note that a recent state ranking by the American Legislative Exchange Council placed all four neighboring initiative states ahead of Kansas for economic performance from 1998-2008.

    Still, Rackaway’s assertions about California are not true. For instance, the professor states, “A typical ballot there has 50 or more initiatives…” The most initiatives ever on a single California statewide ballot? Seventeen. Back in 1914.

    Professor Rackaway contends that, “Initiatives have marginalized that state legislature’s ability to budget …” But even the California Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded recently that “the legislature maintains considerable control over the state budget.”

    Rackaway also cites several “silly initiatives” that are on this year’s California ballot. The only problem being that none of the initiatives mentioned by the professor are actually on the ballot. Oops!

    “If we had 75 percent voter turnout and an electorate committed to informed participation,” wrote Rackaway, “the initiative would be a worthwhile proposal.” But in his view, Kansans currently aren’t up to the job of making decisions.

    Both factually and otherwise, the esteemed professor is sorely mistaken. Kansans deserve the right to vote on the issues that affect their lives, especially on reforms like term limits opposed by self-serving politicians. Thank goodness Mr. Kobach is standing up for the average citizen.

  • For Kansas Rep. Don Hineman, loyalty is a one-way street

    For Republican Kansas Representative Don Hineman of Dighton, party loyalty is a street that runs in only one direction: towards himself.

    In 2008, Hineman challenged an incumbent Republican in Kansas House District 118. Hineman narrowly won the primary. The loser, Virginia Beamer, decided to mount a write-in campaign for the November general election. Hineman won, gathering 6,112 votes to Beamer’s 2,716.

    During the general election campaign, a well-known conservative political communications company worked on behalf of Beamer. Hineman complained, saying that this work violated the Kansas Republican party’s loyalty amendment. In an email, he wrote: “As the nominee of the party I had expected to have the support of party officials, regardless of whatever differences we may have over political philosophy.”

    While I don’t agree with party loyalty oaths, this matter would be just a footnote — and not very interesting at that — if not for Hineman’s recent actions.

    Now, just two years after insisting that a political communications firm cease working for his opponent based on party loyalty, Hineman is campaigning for a Democrat. Not just any Democrat, but former Republican consultant Rob McKnight, who defected to the Democratic Party in order to run for a Kansas House seat from Overland Park.

    The party loyalty section of the Kansas Republican Party Constitution doesn’t apply to elected officials like Hineman. It didn’t apply to the situation in 2008 either, but that didn’t stop Hineman from complaining that “it certainly violates the spirit of that amendment.”

    Hineman’s voting record in the Kansas House is that of a big-taxing and big-spending liberal. He voted for both the big-spending budget and for the statewide sales tax increase this year. He earned a rating of 19 percent on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index for 2010, and 30 percent on AFP’s legislative scorecard for 2010. He’s also opposed to giving citizens the power of initiative and referendum in Kansas.

    Here’s the email Hineman sent:

    Dear Kansas City-area friends and family,

    I am forwarding this email to introduce you to Rob McKnight. Rob is a very good friend, and has been my campaign advisor since I first ran for the Kansas House of Representatives in 2008. Evidently he thought I was having too much fun, because this year Rob is a candidate himself, after over twenty years as a campaign advisor to others. He is running to represent the 20th District in the Kansas House, and I would consider it a privilege to serve with Rob in Topeka.

    I would ask you to consider helping Rob during his campaign. Please think about making a contribution to his campaign (see information below) or help him during one of his scheduled “literature drops”, the first of which takes place the tomorrow, Saturday, September 18. The attached flyer has more information. Please note this is not knocking on doors; it is merely a door-to-door literature drop. Participants will cover a large amount of territory in a short amount of time.

    Rob thinks of everything. The drop is scheduled on a Saturday when the Kansas Jayhawks are idle, so no one need to be distracted by other events. Please consider helping Rob with this event tomorrow. Rob is very deserving, and I know he will be very grateful for your help.

    Thanks!

    Don Hineman

  • Kansas airports and their economic impact

    Last week’s release by the Kansas Department of Transportation of a study of the economic impact of Kansas airports caused quite a stir, with newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times (at least its online version) carrying the Associated Press coverage.

    Perhaps the reason so many distant newspapers were interested in the story is the sensationally large economic impact figures reported. The number of jobs purported to airports is large, by any standard.

    But there’s a problem with these numbers. They’re similar to sensational claims made a few years ago when the case for subsidizing airlines in Wichita was made. Those figures were bogus. So are these.

    The staggeringly large figures come from two aspects of the study. First, the study counts the economic activity from businesses near the airport as attributable to the airport. In the case of the Wichita airport, this means that the employees of Cessna and Bombardier Learjet, and all the economic activity these companies produce, is credited as economic impact of the airport.

    This economic sleight-of-hand allows the study to attribute 22,313 jobs to the Wichita airport. The total economic impact of the Wichita airport is reported as $4.7 billion.

    All these employees don’t work for the airport. Almost all of them work at business firms located near the airport. But the study doesn’t really make that distinction. And when you do things like this, you can really pump up some inflated figures.

    It is a convenient circumstance that these two manufacturers happen to be located near the airport. To credit the airport with the economic impact of these companies — as though the airport was involved in the actual manufacture of airplanes instead of providing an incidental (but important) service — is to grossly overstate the airport’s role and its economic importance.

    A second problem is the study’s use of economic impact multipliers to pump up the figures. A multiplier reflects the fact that money spent at, say an airport, get spent again. Proponents of multipliers forget that money spent elsewhere get multiplied too. In fact, money that is saved and invested get multiplied, too.

    These two factors inspired the Associated Press reporter to lead off a story with “Airports in Kansas support more than 47,000 jobs, generate $2.3 billion in payroll and have an annual economic impact of $10.4 billion …” With numbers so big, you can see why news editors in far-away cities might run the story.

    There’s another problem: these studies usually assume that all the activity is the responsibility of the entity being promoted, that none of it would have happened without the celebrated entity, and that since (usually) the promoted entities are government-owned, all this is evidence of the goodness of government.

    Another problem is that these economic impact figures get used several times to support various government subsidies to business. Here we have the airport claiming two aircraft manufacturing companies’ employees and their economic impact as the product of the airport.

    But when these companies want corporate welfare from the Kansas state government, the economic impact of the companies and their employees will be cited as justification. Politicians, bureaucrats, and the public will believe their case.

    Then, the same numbers might be cited again at Wichita city hall, and maybe before the Sedgwick County Commission as the company makes its case for industrial revenue bonds, tax abatements, forgivable loans, and other forms of local corporate welfare.

    But this economic impact can’t be recycled like this. It exists only once. If the Wichita airport claims it, then it can’t be used again to justify some other program or request.

    Another way the study leaps beyond credibility is its inclusion of the Beech Factory Airport in east Wichita. This is an airport without commercial air service. It exists solely for the convenience of Hawker Beechcraft, and is undoubtedly a necessary component of the capital plant needed to manufacture airplanes.

    The study, however, mixes this airport in with all other Kansas airports, so this airport’s claimed $1.8 billion in economic impact is treated the same as any other Kansas airport. But regular people can’t catch a flight at this airport.

    When government officials use stretched and inflated figures like these, they diminish their credibility. The Kansas Department of Transportation already snowed the Kansas public earlier this year with their claims of the need for huge spending on Kansas roads and highways.

    Now they’re at it again, with claims that simply make no economic sense at all. The fact that news media laps up these figures without any skepticism or critical thought doesn’t help.

    Does this mean that Kansas and its local government shouldn’t offer airports and businesses like aircraft manufacturers help from the public treasury? That’s a different question for a different day.

    Today, however, we need to realize that accurate, reasonable, and believable information about Kansas airports and other transportation infrastructure isn’t available from the Kansas Department of Transportation.

  • Brownback paves plan for Kansas education reform

    Last week near Emporia Sam Brownback, surrounded by Kansas educators and legislators, laid out the start of his plan for improving Kansas education if he is elected governor.

    His opponents in the race for Kansas Governor are Reform Party candidate Ken Cannon, Libertarian Andrew Gray, and Democrat Tom Holland. Mark Parkinson, the incumbent, decided not to run.

    In his remarks, Brownback said that education is “primary function of the state.” While Kansas has excellent schools, he said that more innovation is needed.

    In the area of teachers, Brownback wants more mentoring opportunities available to young teachers. He supports a master teacher plan that offers higher salaries to teachers who “provide models of excellence within their schools.” He also called for alternative teacher certification programs that allow those who did not follow the traditional teacher education and certification path to become teachers.

    On funding, Brownback said that Kansas school funding formula needs revision. He called for an end to school finance litigation, saying that school finance is the responsibility of the legislature, local school boards, and voters, but not the courts. A focus of a new funding formula will be on getting dollars into the classroom, he added.

    One of the five key benchmarks in Brownback’s administration will be fourth grade reading achievement. He cited National Assessment of Educational Progress scores that indicate 28 percent of fourth-graders fail to achieve a “basic” score. “If you can’t read, your world starts closing in around you. But if you can read your world starts opening up,” he said. Fourth grade is a key time to measure reading, he added.

    He also called for a refocused emphasis on career and technical education, citing a wind turbine program at Cloud County Community College. With innovative programs like this, he said it is unacceptable that any child would drop out of school.

    Brownback said that it is crucial that we find ways to support our higher education system. He said he would highlight and support the work of community and technical colleges, stabilize funding for public universities, support the national cancer institute designation at KU, building the national bio and agri-defense facility at KSU, the Kansas Polymer Research Center at Pittsburg State University, and the National Center for Aviation Research at Wichita State University.

    In response to a question, Brownback said he is not looking to redefine the state’s responsibility for funding education as mandated by the Kansas Constitution. He said he wants to get more money into the classroom. The disputes we’ve had should not be resolved by the courts, he added. The percentage has not been as high as he thinks it could be.

    He added that if local taxpayers vote to spend more on local schools, he would support that and allow them to do that. Currently the local option budget formula places a limit on how much local districts can add to what the state allocates.

    Continuing, Brownback said the problem with school funding is the Kansas formula. The money is not getting in the classroom, as there are too many “nooks and crannies” in the formula. He would focus on renovating the formula, he added.

    Another question mentioned two reforms that some states are using and the Obama administration supports — charter schools and teacher merit pay — and noted that these reforms are absent from the plan presented today. Brownback replied that the master teacher program is a form of increased pay for highly qualified and gifted teachers. On charter schools, Brownback said that additional proposals may be rolled out, and that he didn’t want to lay out everything in one day.

    The complete press release announcing the plan may be read at the Brownback campaign website.

    Commentary

    If we wonder why conservatives are not fully gung-ho for Sam Brownback, the education plan provides a few reasons why. The two missing reforms asked about (the questioner was me) — charter schools and teacher merit pay — are popular with conservatives, but vigorously opposed by the existing Kansas education establishment, especially the teachers union.

    The master teacher pay plan proposed by Brownback is a long away from merit pay. Under a master teacher plan, it seems like a relatively small number of teachers would be rewarded. Merit pay usually means that all teachers are paid according to their effectiveness, as is the case with most workers, especially professionals.

    I didn’t get a chance to ask another question about another reform battle that is being waged: teacher tenure reform. But it seems like the relatively meek reforms proposed by Brownback indicate a candidate who would not be willing to take on the teachers unions over the issue of tenure.

    Brownback’s reliance on the NAEP scores as a measure of student achievement is refreshing, as the Kansas school establishment would like to ignore this test. The NAEP is a more rigorous test than the Kansas-administered tests. According to figures at the Kansas State Department of Education, in 2009 87.2 percent of Kansas fourth graders were reading at a level the department considers “at or above standard.” This number has been increasing at the same time the NAEP score are mostly flat. Brownback didn’t talk about this discrepancy, but if he is willing to advocate for an honest measurement of Kansas schoolchildren, that would be a big step.

    Brownback’s advocacy for allowing local school districts to vote for more school spending is sure to be vigorously opposed unless the money is “equalized.” In the Kansas House this year, there was a proposal to let counties charge an additional sales tax to be given to the school districts in the county. A Johnson County — a large, wealthy county — legislator proposed the measure, which was vigorously opposed by counties without Johnson county’s wealth. If some of the money raised by a Johnson county sales tax was shipped to poorer counties through the equalization formula, the opposition would disappear, almost certainly.

    An interesting commentary on the coverage of Brownback and Holland and their education proposals is at the Kansas Republican Assembly blog: Analyze this: Opinion masquerading as news.

    More about Brownbacks plan from the Kansas Education: Public Policy in Kansas and Beyond blog is at Sen. Brownback offers weak tea of reforms.

  • Kansas tax burdens getting heavier, studies show

    While Kansas ranks in the middle of the states in total tax burden, the state’s take is getting larger, compared to other states.

    This finding is important as Kansas and its largest city are increasingly using favorable tax treatment to centrally plan and manage economic development. When the state allows a company’s employee withholding taxes to be used for its own exclusive benefit — as outgoing Governor Mark Parkinson recently granted to Wichita’s Bombardier Learjet — it increases the cost of government for everyone else.

    The Kansas PEAK bill that the legislature passed this year allows this practice to be extended to more and smaller companies.

    In cities like Wichita, the city council routinely grants tax abatements and other favorable tax treatment to companies that it believes are deserving.

    The result of all this intervention is that the tax base is narrowed, and the high cost of government is born by a smaller group of taxpayers.

    To top it off, the result of this centralized planning and management of economic development is: pretty much zero.

    In 2008 the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit looked at the use of economic development incentives in Kansas, examining some $1.3 billion in spending over five years. In examining the literature, the auditors found: “Most studies of traditional economic development incentives suggest these incentives don’t have a significant impact on economic growth.”

    It also found: “The majority of research concludes there is a lack of demonstrated impact from the typical types of economic development assistance, and that incentives aren’t cost-effective.” The audit can be read at Economic Development: Determining the Amounts the State Has Spent on Economic Development Programs and the Economic Impacts on Kansas Counties. The document has an executive summary.

    The concentrating of the cost of government on a shrinking tax base spells trouble. One solution that I proposed to the Wichita city council is that when tax incentives are given, the city reduce its spending by the cost of the incentive: “The harmful effect of this tax abatement is this: When someone escapes paying taxes, someone else has to make up the difference. … As long as this body is willing to grant tax abatements and other special tax favors, I propose this simple pledge: that when the City of Wichita allows a company to escape paying taxes, that it reduce city spending by the same amount. By following this simple rule, the City can be reminded of the cost of granting special tax favors, and the rest of us won’t have to pay for them.”

    Kansas tax burdens getting heavier, studies show

    By Gene Meyer, Kansas Reporter

    (KansasReporter) TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansans’ state and local sales taxes are now 12th highest in the nation, though their total tax burden is nearer the middle of the pack in 24th place, say two new reports released Thursday.

    But, as investment companies always remind us when pitching their new products, your actual results may vary.

    “Even within a state, it can be difficult to know what the average tax rate is when there can be hundreds of different jurisdictions charging different rates,” said Kail Padgitt, an economist at the Washington, D.C. based Tax Foundation, which calculates Kansas’ 7.95 percent average state and local sales taxes are 12th highest in the nation.

    Within that average, though, actual local rates in some 790 different county, local and special tax districts across Kansas vary from 6.3 percent where only the basic state rate is charged to more than 10.5 percent in a few special taxing districts.

    The ranking, one of the first nationally to include Kansas’ recently raised 6.3 percent statewide sales tax that became effective July 1, puts the 12th ranked Sunflower state higher than its neighbors in 15th ranked Missouri, 25th ranked Colorado and 29th ranked Nebraska. Only Oklahoma, where an average 8.33 percent sales tax burden clocks in at seventh highest in the nation, comes in higher.

    Continue reading at Kansas Reporter

  • How does Kansas rank in economic freedom?

    In measures of economic and personal freedom, Kansas ranks relatively well among the states, but lags behind some neighboring states. Recent actions by the Kansas legislature might drive its ranking down.

    Last year the Mercatus Center at George Mason University published a paper that ranks the states in several areas regarding freedom. According to the authors, “This paper presents the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres.”

    What is the philosophical basis for measuring or determining freedom? Here’s an explanation from the introduction:

    We explicitly ground our conception of freedom on an individual rights framework. In our view, individuals should be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and property as they see fit, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. This understanding of freedom follows from the natural-rights liberal thought of John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Robert Nozick, but it is also consistent with the rights-generating rule-utilitarianism of Herbert Spencer and others.

    According to the authors, “No current studies exist that measure both economic and personal freedom in the fifty states.” So this is a ground-breaking work.

    How does Kansas do? Surprisingly, not too badly. Not outstanding, but not as bad as I might have thought.

    For the four areas measured, here’s how we did: In fiscal policy, Kansas is 28. In regulatory policy, 4. In economic freedom, 18. In personal freedom, 15. (In all cases, a ranking of 1 means the most freedom.)

    Our overall ranking is 12.

    Some of the remarks the authors made about Kansas include noting our large public employee payroll, even though state employees are not paid as well as private sector workers. Also: “The area of spending that could most stand to be cut is education, while the taxes that should have priority for cutting are individual income and property taxes.”

    Some of our neighbors do pretty well in the overall ranking. Colorado is 2, Texas is 5, Missouri is 6, and Oklahoma is 18. Nebraska is not as good at 28.

    Colorado undoubtedly benefited from its taxpayer bill of rights (TABOR) law, which places limits on the rate of growth of government spending, although it had been suspended for several years. Those in Kansas who favor government spending over private sector spending use Colorado as an example of a state that TABOR has destroyed, but in terms of economic freedom, it does very well.

    In case you’re wondering, for overall ranking, New Hampshire is best. The worst? It’s no surprise that it’s New York by a wide margin, with New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland rounding out the bottom five.

    If this index were to be recomputed this year, Kansas might fall in rankings due to outgoing Governor Mark Parkinson‘s two landmark achievements — the increase in the statewide sales tax and the statewide smoking ban. Some of the other enacted laws detailed in the article In Kansas Legislature, a bad year for freedom and liberty would push Kansas’ ranking down, too.

    But since rankings are relative and consider what happened in other states, Kansas might not have changed much, as many states have passed tax increases and other freedom-killing legislation and regulations.

    The full study contains discussion of the politics surrounding these rankings, and a narrative discussion of the factors present in each state.

    You may read the entire study by clicking on Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom.

  • Kansas Senate could see shift

    The recent primary election in Kansas, combined with the results of the November general election, could alter the composition of the Kansas Senate, even though no members are standing for election. (Correction: one member faces an opponent in November after winning the primary election.)

    Several members of the senate advanced through last week’s primary election in their efforts in seeking higher — or other — offices. Some are likely to win their elections in November and be required to resign their senate positions.

    These include Senator Tim Huelskamp of Fowler, who is running for U.S. Congress from the first district, and Senator Jeff Colyer, who is nominee for lieutenant governor on a ticket with U.S. Senator Sam Brownback. Both are odds-on favorites in the November election.

    Senator Derek Schmidt is running for Kansas Attorney General. Should he win, not only would there be a new member of the senate, there would also be a new majority leader, which is a powerful and important position in the senate’s leadership structure.

    In Sedgwick County, Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau has won the Democratic Party nomination for a position on the Sedgwick County Commission. (Provisional ballots are being counted in this primary election contest, but the outcome is not expected to change.) Should she win in November there would be a new senator from her district in northeast Wichita.

    Rumors are afloat that Senator Jim Barnett, recently a candidate for the Republican party nomination for U.S. Congress for the first district, may retire. Earlier this year he retired from his Emporia medical practice, and his wife works for a school district in Johnson County, some 100 miles away from Emporia.

    Then — assuming a Brownback win in the race for governor — there will likely be a shake-up in many cabinet positions. Several senators may be interested in these. A win by Tom Holland might produce some changeover in the cabinet, and a Holland win would require that he and his running mate Senator Kelly Kultala resign from the senate.

    It’s too early to tell whether these possible resignations and incoming new members would produce a shift in the political makeup of the senate. New senators will be selected by the precinct committeemen and women in the retiring senators’ districts. They would serve the remainder of the terms, which would be two years.

    While the Kansas Senate is overwhelmingly in the hands of Republicans — the present composition is 31 Republicans and nine Democrats — many Senate Republicans routinely vote with Democrats on issues of spending and taxation. An example is the bill that increased the statewide sales tax by one cent per dollar this year. That legislation passed with a vote of 23 to 17, with 15 Republican senators joining eight Democrats voting in favor of passage.

    An interesting situation is the replacement for Huelskamp, assuming he wins his general election in November. It was thought that longtime Representative and former Speaker of the House Melvin Neufeld would be the favorite to succeed Huelskamp. But Neufeld lost his re-election bid to upstart Garrett Love by a large margin. Whether the precinct committee people would elevate someone who just lost an election to a higher office is unknown. Could Love be appointed to the Senate, and then Neufeld appointed to the position to which he just lost a re-election bid? That would seem to nullify the sentiment of the voters expressed just a week ago. Others will undoubtedly be interested in the senate position, too.

  • Kansas judicial selection needs reform, says law professor

    Selecting lawmakers is important, says Kansas University Law Professor Stephen J. Ware, and that’s why Kansans should care about the method of judicial selection in Kansas.

    Ware spoke to a meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club on Friday about the method of judicial selection in Kansas. His paper on this topic is Selection to the Kansas Supreme Court, which is published by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.

    “Judges are lawmakers too. Judges make law,” Ware told the audience. While the legislature passes laws and judges apply those laws in the cases that come before them, it’s more complicated than that because of the common law, Ware explained. While there has been a growth of legislation, statutes, and administrative agencies, many important areas are still governed by common law, and it’s judges that make this common law.

    While the common law is generally noncontroversial, Ware said that much of the lawmaking that judges do is “predictably political in its dividing lines.” Conservative judges and liberal judges predictably decide differently on similar cases. So it is important to our body of law, Ware said, whether the judges who make that law are conservative or liberal. Importantly, most lawmaking by judges takes place in state courts, not federal courts.

    In a democracy, lawmakers should be selected democratically, Ware said, and judges are part of the lawmaking process. But democratic selection of judges is a controversial topic with many Kansas lawyers. The members of the Kansas Supreme Court — the final word on law in Kansas — are selected in a very undemocratic way, Ware told the audience.

    In Kansas, there is a nominating commission that accepts applications for open positions on either the Kansas Supreme Court or the Kansas Court of Appeals. In secret, the commission deliberates and votes to send three finalists to the governor. The governor must select one of those three to become a new member of the court.

    Therefore, the members of the commission exercise great power compared to average citizens, Ware explained. The nine-member commission has four members who are selected by the governor, which Ware said is a democratic process, as the governor is elected by the people. But the other five members — which constitute a majority of the commission — are selected by the 9,000 members of the Kansas bar (the lawyers licensed to practice law in Kansas).

    Ware said this is an inequality that goes against the “one person, one vote” principle of democracies. The power of a vote of a member of the bar is “infinitely more powerful” than the votes of non-lawyers.

    When comparing the method of judicial selection in Kansas to other states, Ware said that “Kansas is the only state that gives its bar the power to select the majority of its supreme court nominating commission.”

    There are three basic ways that states use to select their Supreme Court members. The “Missouri Plan” makes use of a nominating commission, where the governor must select one of the commission’s recommendations. Kansas uses a version of the Missouri plan.

    A second method is similar to the way United States federal court judges are selected, where the governor makes a nomination that is then confirmed by the state Senate or other legislative body.

    A third method is elections. Ware distinguished between contestable elections — where there are two or more candidates running against each other — and retention elections, where the question is simply should a serving judge be retained in office. Supreme Court judges in Kansas to have to stand for retention elections. In Kansas, as is typical around the country, no serving judge has ever failed to win a retention election.

    Ware gave these reasons for reform: First, basic democracy, the one person, one vote principle. The secrecy of the nominating commission is troubling, too.

    As to options for reform, one measure would be to reduce or eliminate the number of nominating commission members who are selected by the bar. Commission members might be selected by the governor and legislature, for example. This is a more democratic method as the governor and legislators are elected by the people.

    Another way would be to add senate confirmation to the existing process, or to do away with the nominating commission and have senate confirmation of the governor’s nominee. Finally, we could have contestable elections.

    Any change to the method of judicial selection would require an amendment to the Kansas Constitution. That requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the Kansas Senate and House of Representatives, and then a majority vote of the people.

    Responding to questions, Ware said that in states that use senate confirmation of a governor’s nominee, the nominee is nearly always confirmed with very few dissenting votes. He said that this is evidence of governors getting a feel in advance for potential nominees’ prospects for confirmation and using that to help select a nominee, rather than senators simply rolling over and acceding to whomever a governor nominates.

    Judicial selection among the statesJudicial selection among the states. Kansas is alone in giving the bar extreme power.

  • Kansas primary legislative elections 2010

    Here’s a look at the August 3, 2010 Kansas primary election contests that had the possibility of changing the character of the Kansas House of Representatives, and in one case, the Kansas Senate.

    A Kansas Chamber of Commerce endorsement is a reliable measure of a candidate’s conservative credentials from a fiscal perspective. The Kansas Economic Freedom Index and AFP legislative scorecards provide additional insight into legislators and their voting records.

    Here are races where there may be a shift in the makeup of the House, sometimes depending on the results of the November general election.

    In Kansas House District 17 (parts of Shawnee and Lenexa) the Kansas Chamber of Commerce endorsed Kelly Meigs, and she defeated one-term incumbent Jill Quigley 53 percent to 47 percent in the Republican primary. Bryan Cox has filed as a Democrat. Quigley had a liberal voting record, scoring just nine percent on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

    In Kansas House District 29 (parts of Overland Park) conservative challenger Richard Downing wasn’t able to defeat first-term incumbent Sheryl L. Spalding (19 percent on KEFI), although the margin of Spalding’s victory is just 29 votes of 2,695 cast and could possibly change. The winner will face Democrat Doug Dowell in the general election.

    In Kansas House District 65 (Junction City and parts of Geary and Wabaunsee counties), Barbara Craft did not seek re-election. Her Kansas Economic Freedom Index rating of 19 percent places her in the left-wing Republican camp. The Kansas Chamber did not make an endorsement in this district, but Republican primary winner James P. Fawcett has been described as a conservative. He’ll face Democrat Larry Hicks in November.

    In House District 110 (Osborne, Rooks and Russell Counties, Cities of Ellis and Victoria, Buckeye, Catherine, Ellis, Herzog and Victoria townships) three Republicans vied to fill this seat previously held by Dan Johnson with his 16 percent Kansas Economic Freedom Index score. Chamber-endorsed Dan L. Collins won. No Democrat filed in this district, so this is a certain pick-up for conservatives.

    In House District 69 (parts of Salina) Chamber-endorsed Tom Arpke defeated incumbent Republican Deena L. Horst, who has represented the district since 1995. Horst had earned a score of 69 percent on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index. On AFP’s rating for this year she scored 60 percent and 100 percent the year before. She voted for the big-spending budget this year, but not the sales tax increase. Arpke will face Democrat Gerrett Morris — not to be confused with Garrett Morris of Saturday Night Live fame — in November.

    Kansas House District 120 (Cheyenne, Decatur, Norton, Phillips and Rawlins counties) is a loss for conservatives as incumbent John Faber lost to challenger Ward Cassidy. The winner will face Democrat Robert Strevey in the general election. The Chamber had endorsed Faber, who earned a Kansas Economic Freedom Index rating of 72 percent and an AFP rating of 90 percent. A resident of St. Francis, Cassidy and his wife are public school employees, and he lists education as one of his priorities. When public school employees say this, it usually means that spending on schools is a priority over everything else. His website also says he pledges to “look at every means possible to increase revenue within the state without raising taxes.”

    In Kansas House District 124 (Grant, Morton, Stanton and Stevens counties, Haskell County: City of Satanta and Dudley Township, Seward County: Seward Township), incumbent Bill Light did not seek re-election. Republicans Dan Widder and J. Stephen Alford sought the Republican party nomination, with no Democrats having filed. The Chamber endorsed Widder. Alford narrowly won with 51 percent of the vote. Light was a left-wing Republican with a Kansas Economic Freedom Index rating of 11 percent. Alford, endorsed by liberal Senate President Stephen Morris (his own KEFI rating is only seven percent), can’t be much more to the left than Light.

    There were a handful of instances where moderate or liberal Republicans withstood challenges by conservatives.

    In Kansas House District 9 (Allen County plus parts of Woodson, Coffey, Anderson, and Franklin Counties, including the city of Iola), the Chamber selected Raymond “Bud” Sifers over incumbent Bill Otto in the Republican primary. Otto won with 56 percent of the vote. No Democrat filed. Otto is sometimes difficult to classify. He scored 60 percent on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index, but only 40 percent on AFP’s scorecard for this year after rating 82 percent the year before. This year, Otto voted against the spending bill but for the sales tax increase, the only member of the House to vote this way on these two bills.

    In Kansas House District 60 (parts of Emporia) incumbent Republican Don Hill defeated challenger Daniel Buller. Hill scored a very liberal nine percent on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index and is mentioned as one of the leaders of the left-wing Republican faction of the House that votes for spending and tax increases. Hill will face Democrat Michael “Mike” Dorcey in the general election.

    In Kansas House District 64 (Clay County plus parts of Dickinson, Geary, and Riley counties) incumbent Republican Vern Swanson was challenged by Michael Musselman. Swanson won. No Democrat filed. Swanson scored 19 percent on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

    In Kansas House District 68 (parts of Morris and Dickinson counties including Council Grove and Abilene) two-term incumbent Republican Tom J. Moxley was challenged by Calvin Seadeek Jr. Moxley has a liberal voting record, scoring 19 percent on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index. There is no Democratic party opponent in the general election.

    In Kansas House District 70 (Chase and Marion counties, plus part of Butler County) Cheryl Green challenged first-term incumbent J. Robert (Bob) Brookens (KEFI 19 percent). Brookens won with 60 percent of the vote. There was no Democratic Party filer.

    In Kansas House District 71 (parts of Salina) incumbent Charlie Roth withstood a challenge by two opponents in the Republican primary. There is no Democratic Party filer. Roth scored a liberal nine percent on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index and played a leadership role in passing the statewide smoking ban in the House of Representatives this year.

    In Kansas House District 83 (Eatborough and parts of east Wichita) veteran incumbent Jo Ann Pottorff defeated conservative challenger Kyle Amos. The Chamber chose Amos for its endorsement, and Pottorff scored a low 13 percent on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index. Sean Amore is the Democratic Party opponent in the general election.

    In the Kansas Senate, there was one election this year. The appointed incumbent for Senate District 7 (In Johnson County the cities of Countryside, Fairway, Merriam, Mission, Mission Hills, Mission Woods, Prairie Village, Roeland Park, Westwood, Westwood Hills, and parts of Leawood and Overland Park) is Terrie Huntington, and she faced a conservative challenge from David Harvey. Huntington’s votes for the big-spending budget and the sales tax increase earned her a Kansas Econimic Freedom Index score of 20 percent, and led to the Kansas Chamber endorsement of Harvey. Huntingon won with 54 percent of the vote.

    Conservatives withstood some challengers in these districts.

    In Kansas House District 13 (Eureka, Yates Center, Fredonia, Neodesha and surrounding area) the Chamber endorsed incumbent Forrest Knox over challenger Trent Forsyth in the Republican primary. No Democrat filed. Knox scored 95 percent on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index, and Forsyth was endorsed by the liberal teachers union. Knox won with 54 percent of the vote.

    In Kansas House District 94 (parts of west Wichita and part of Attica, Delano, and Waco townships), incumbent conservative Joe McLeland handily defeated two challengers, including one endorsed by the liberal Wichita Eagle editorial board. There is no Democratic Party candidate in this district

    In Kansas House District 121 (Graham, Sheridan, Sherman and Thomas counties), Brenda McCants challenged incumbent Jim Morrison, with no Democrat filing for the general election contest. Martin Hawver, dean of Kansas Statehouse reporters, described this as a a race “more about experience — coming up to reapportionment — than philosophy, not a moderate/conservative split.” But Morrison had the Kansas Chamber’s endorsement and a reliably conservative voting record.