KS House fails to get 2/3 for judicial reform on ballot
Although this proposal already passed the Senate THREE YEARS AGO, the Kansas House today could not muster the 2/3 needed (84 votes) to put HCR 5005 on the November ballot.
The vote attained was 68 for, 54 against (with 3 reps absent). Those voting yes are the reps who treat the pro-life cause as a priority– not a preference, or an afterthought. Kansans for Life considered this the most important pro-life vote of this legislative session.
Here are the names of state reps who supported this measure to allow Kansans to vote for a change in judicial selection, with those in bold having spoken at the podium urging passage:
Anthimides, Barker, Barton, Billinger, Boldra, Bradford, Bruchman, Campbell, B. Carpenter, W. Carpenter, Claeys, Corbet, Davis, DeGraaf, Dove, Edmonds, Esau, Estes, Garber, Goico, Gonzalez, Grosserode, Hawkins, Hedke, Hemsley, Highland, Hildabrand, Hoffman, Houser, Huebert, Hutchins, Hutton, Johnson, D.Jones, K.Jones, Kahrs, Kelley, Kleeb, Lunn, Macheers, Mason, Mast, McPherson, Merrick, O'Brien, Osterman, Pauls, Peck, Powell, Rahjes, Read, Rhoades, Rubin, Ryckman,Jr., Ryckman,Sr., Scapa, Schwab, Schwartz, Smith, Suellentrop, Sutton, Thimesch, Todd (bill carrier), Vickrey, Waymaster, Weber, Whitmer, Williams.
State reps Henry, Kiegerl and Seiwert were absent. Contact information for all state reps is here. Please thank your state reps who voted yes. Special thanks to House Speaker, Ray Merrick (R-Stillwell), for allowing this vote and staging the informational caucuses this week.
The issue is not closed. Kansas has the least transparent and least democratic process used to arrive at nominees for the state Supreme Court (see chart). Behind closed doors a commission of nine –including five lawyers voted in by lawyers– puts forth three names and the governor must choose one or else the Supreme Court Chief Justice picks one.
Our State Supreme Court is more liberal than the U.S. Supreme Court, which — with an 8-1 vote– chastised our top Court two weeks ago for its handling of a death penalty sentencing issue.
Our second highest state tribunal, the Court of Appeals, recently allowed dismemberment abortions to continue by a split decision interpreting our 1859 state Constitution to embody a right to abortion stronger than that of Roe. That’s pathetic!
All our pro-life laws are in jeopardy when the courts continue to deliver rulings that substitute abortion advocacy for strict construction analysis. Stay tuned!