Rep. Mike O’Neal, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a member of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Performance, said the on-line process for evaluating judges seeking to be retained in office is imperfect, but a good first step in educating voters.

O’Neal said he was not particularly surprised that not one of the 82 judges facing retention elections in November was recommended for ouster.

He said the Commission on Judicial Performance had intentionally set a fairly low standard for judges for its initial effort.

“We set a minimum GPA,” he said.

O'Neal, a Republican from Hutchinson who is challenging Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, for the Kansas House of Representatives speakership next session, conceded that commissioners were concerned that no judge was recommended for non-retention. O'Neal said they feared the pass given to all judges could call into question the value of the process.

“We patterned this process after Colorado, where they’ve rarely recommended non-retention,” O’Neal said. “But what they have seen is that the mere fact that they’re being evaluated causes judges to retire or not stand for retention, so it’s having an effect.”

He pointed out that Shawnee County District Court Judge Matthew Dowd, who was accused of handling out light sentences to sexual offenders, had evaded the evaluation process by retiring prior to the November retention elections.

In the case of Douglas County District Court Judge Paula Martin, the subject of an ouster attempt by a citizen group over a controversial sentencing decision, had been and will continue to be the subject of sufficient press attention in her district to give voters the information they need to make the right decision in November.

He didn't discuss whether or not the commission's approval of Martin could be interpreted as an endorsement.

O’Neal, an attorney, said commissioners will raise the standard, the so-called GPA, that judges must achieve over time. Most Kansas judges are nominated by lawyers. In most cases, there is no public vetting process. This process also applies to state Supreme Court justices.

“For this initial effort, we didn’t have the time or resources to evaluate all judges in Kansas, so we made a decision to just evaluate the 82 judges whose names will be on ballots in November. We won’t change the standard until all judges have been evaluated at least once. We want them all judged initially by the same standard.”

In the meantime, O’Neal said:  “We’re giving voters in the state hundreds of times more information that they’ve ever had before.”

• Note: A previous KansasLiberty.com story erroneously reported 200 judges had been screened by the commision. The correct number is 82. We regret the error.
  

The Week in Review