Although a relentless string of stories about judges giving taps on the wrist to convicted criminals and helping cover up non-enforcement of state laws might suggest otherwise, judges in Kansas who are seeking to be retained in office in November are apparently doing a bang-up job meting out justice.

That’s according to the Kansas Commission on Judicial Performance.

Out of more than 200 state judges reviewed by the commission, not a single one was recommended for ouster in November.

The commission, created by the Kansas Legislature to provide guidance to voters, on Aug. 29 made available on-line its evaluations of Kansas judges. www.kansasjudicialperformance.org

That comes as something of a shock to Kevin Groenhagen, who is leading an effort to oust Douglas County District Court Judge Paula Martin from the bench.

Groenhagen and his group believe Martin has shown bias toward defendants, particularly in the area of sentencing. They point to a case in which Martin sentenced two men accused of raping a 13-year-old girl to 60 days of jail time and probation. They faced possible 13-year prison sentences.

Groenhagen said he reviewed the commission’s report on Martin and it made no mention of her light sentence, or of the overturning of her sentencing decision by an appeals court that concluded “no reasonable person” would have deviated so drastically from sentencing guidelines.

“I don’t know what to make of this yet, to be honest with you,” Groenhagen said.

In most - but not all - Kansas counties, a commission that includes lawyers and non-lawyers nominates finalists for judgeships. The governor then appoints new judges from among the finalists recommended by the commission. Voters have the opportunity to oust judges every four years. That has only happened once in the history of the state. Most judges, no matter how unpopular or unwise their actions, are retained by voters.

The performance evaluations by the commission were designed to give voters some data on judges before casting a ballot. Most of the members of the commission are lawyers.

"For years, voters have been asked to vote on whether to retain judges without the benefit of non-partisan information about their performance," Randy Hearrell, executive director of the commission and the Kansas Judicial Council, said in a press release. "The Legislature created the commission to provide information so voters can be better informed."

The commission includes six non-lawyers; six others who are lawyers, including retired judges and justices; and a chairman, who is a lawyer. At least one non-lawyer commission member and at least one lawyer commission member live in each of the state's four congressional districts.

As part of the evaluation process, lawyers and court officials, including court staff, jurors, law enforcement personnel, probation officers, social services caseworkers, appellate level judges and others who have appeared before or had professional contact with the judge being evaluated fill out surveys. Litigants and witnesses are also canvassed, however. Individual surveys are confidential, and judges and justices don't know who returns the surveys.

Judges are rated on legal ability, impartiality, temperament and communications skills.

The evaluation process is funded through court fees, not tax dollars.

The Week in Review