This morning I spent at the Johnson County Courthouse observing the public committee that interviews candidates for Judgeships at the county level. I did this for a few reasons.
1. There is an item on the ballot in Johnson County that would move Judgeships from being appointed positions decided by a panel of people mostly made up of lawyers, judges, and concerned civilians, to an elected positions (making Judges become candidates for office.)
2. Another reason I went was because the news media continuously gets this story wrong in saying it is a super secret process that no one from the public is able to participate in or observe. I know this because me and 2 (then eventually a third) people viewed this process all morning watching as the panel asked questions from applications for a single position available to replace a retiring civil court judge.
According to an
AP report
Tim Golba of Lenexa, who led the petition drive, said he wants fair judges but also believes they should be held accountable by the public for their decisions and have to explain their positions on such things as abortion or school finance.
"The way the system is right now, it leaves the people in the dark," Golba said. "If we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people, then I think the people ought to have a say-so in that part of our government."
Clearly Mr. Golba was misinformed about the process leaving people in the dark. It was actually quite bright in the room - so bright in fact that I didn't have to use a flash on my camera when I took this picture of the panel.
Further, because I walked right into the meeting like the village idiot, the panel was very nice and asked me if I had any questions or wanted to make a statement or anything. I said no I was just there to watch and that was cool with them.
A lovely woman I met named Ann was there also observing. She said she's been coming to meetings like this for 5 years or more, recalling a now Family Court judge she watched be interviewed who was eventually appointed.
"Sometimes I rank the candidates and some of them really aren't very good, but I remember thinking that she was the best and that was who the committee went with too," Ann said.
Ann told me during a break that proceedings like these should always be open to the general public and she was surprised that more people didn't show up to observe - particularly media sources. I was certainly the only "media" there... but I told them I was just a blogger.
Another man was there, probably in his 70's who was a lawyer (I think he was still practicing). When given an opportunity he gave us a nice history of his legal career, and of history in general talking about WW2.
Once we were heard and had a chance to ask questions the leader of the panel told us that this meeting was in compliance with the Kansas State Constitution's Open Meetings Law which requires any agency to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters. This was done to preserve and ensure confidentially of anonymous sources who made comments in confidence about the applicants.
I was curious about this - and later clarified the reasons they do this ... but I'm getting ahead of myself. ***
There were
three questions I paid particular interest to that the panelists asked, but there were probably 10+ questions asked by each panelist depending on the applicant. (Sometimes they didn't ask my fav three - but I did my best to include everything overheard.)
- First was "what are your hot buttons" meaning what hacks you off to the point that you possibly do something outside of your normal interactions because it bothers you so much. Another only slightly interesting question was about the candidates weaknesses - which often played into their hot-button issues.
- The second was "what is your relationship with the community" which I found to be an interesting question I wouldn't normally have thought to ask.
- Third was "what is the most significant ethical dilemma have you faced." A pertinent question I also would not have thought to ask.
Candidate 1: was a nice young woman who said that she felt like she's had a broad span of experience in Probate Court. (I have no idea what that means... but I wrote it down)
She felt like she was always annoyed by people who were not prepared when coming into court. "I'm shocked at the number of my opposing councils who don't even come to the court appointment." (I was shocked too - who knew this happened!) Her weaknesses surrounded this as well - she was very impatient with people who weren't prepared that she had to oppose. Evidently "the dog ate my homework" or "my alarm didn't go off" doesn't work in the real world.
Her ethical dilemma was a time their firm screwed something up and were way off on some estimations and had to go back to the client and admit to the screw up.
Candidate 2: was a previous applicant (oddly enough many of them had applied for a past judgeship which I found interesting). He was a middle aged guy who seemed well spoken and whatnot. He was asked what he learned since the last time he applied and replied that the first time was really a blur because he was new to it and nervous. He said that the application was very difficult and extensive - saying it was like a federal application (reminder: this is a county judgeship.)
"Which I guess proves that the process works because you all know everything and its so detailed."
(interesting point)
His hot button issue was the people who won't work with you. Meaning opposing council who have some kind of agenda and just won't do what they are supposed to do. "Even if you're on the opposing side, you're both trying to move the trail forward. And some people are confrontational and I really don't like that," he said.
He didn't get the ethics question - but his weakness was particularly interesting. He said he cared too much. Meaning he is often times too emotionally invested in the clients, particularly children or spouses in a divorce (I think he came out of Family Law). "As a judge that can be difficult and you can't let it blind you." He said he could see himself as a judge wanting to make suggestions to a lawyer about how they could better serve their client, but, he said "as a judge you're not there to create the solution. You have to look at it with - here is the law and the judge really has to follow the law or follow the precedent. " He remembered a time when he was in law school and had a professor that told him "Don't think creatively - just read the statue!"
Candidate 3: was an older man who talked about his kids who were mostly all in college at that point - so he was much older than the first applicant. He spoke briefly about being a journalist at some point and how being impartial and weighing both sides was similar in both journalism and in being a judge. The most common comment about him from those that were interviewed about this candidate said that he was consistently the most prepared in the courtroom.
His hot button issue was someone accusing him of not being impartial, because he works very hard to be and would work very hard to be impartial. He said that is going too far.
In the past he's only been involved in the community with the things his children were involved in like sports or Habitat for Humanity ... things like that, but he sees this very much as a way to give back to the community.
They asked him about the pay cut (evidently Judges don't make much money). He said it was a big consideration when thinking about the position. In his office there are first year associates who are getting the salary of what a judge would make. He said he was happy where he and his family were. He was settled and ready to move onto something that was more intellectually challenging and enjoyable and that he didn't need a lot of money to do what he loves.
Candidate 4: was particularly interesting. Came from evidently a more rural area of Kansas and talked about his father teaching him that his handshake was his bond and that you earn leadership not by seeking it but by earning it.
When asked about his involvement in the community he talked about the responsibility of the bench to be responsible, work hard, and be prepared. He said he certainly saw it important to speak at the Rotary and whatnot and be accessible to the community not "hiding behind an Ivory Tower" but to be out and about - something, he said, we're starting to see more of with the Supreme Court.
(I found that interesting because he truly viewed the position as community service - something the previous candidate also touched on. Similarly, I realized that the accessibility of our judges is so limited. You really don't see them much in the community - and I found it particularly interesting that this panel was emphasizing not just the post itself being a form of public service but also that as a county position that judges should be involved in their county.)
Hot buttons: dishonesty – "I’ve watched CEOs and waitresses lie under oath – seen attorneys bend the truth and I’d like to think I’ve coped with it well."
Candidate 5: by this time I was starting to get a little tired and bored and this guy didn't help... He was very monotone, even keel, and spoke with the rhythm of a math professor. The questions were beginning to get mundane until he spoke about the pillar he puts such a position on.
"This is the highest calling for a lawyer," he said with a lot of passion. "This is a chance to serve the public and where lawyers can do the most good. I have a tradition of public service in my family and its why I went on to be a public defender... I've since moved into private practice but I strongly want to get back to that... I have the experience and temperament to be a good judge."
I only half listened to much of what he said until one of the panelists got into some of the cases the candidate had handled. Evidently he worked on cases that ended up being HUGE cases where media was bugging him constantly, he was under a gag order by the judge, and it was a case that no one would take, but that he did - and did all the research on it and ended up winning. He's done very difficult cases where two white men attacked an African American man in a racially motivated crime, and represented several young women that were all raped by their doctor.
I was floored and shocked. What an amazing history from someone I never ever would have expected.
The panel broke for lunch and I followed them around asking questions. I wanted to know more about the process, the kind of information that is on the application etc...
None of them had a clean application I could take with me but one panelist sat down and went over the last applicant's application talking about the questions that were on it.
Application Questions:
- Personal info - schools attended –
- list all courts bars, administrative bodies admitted to practiced on
- Chronically list employment
- Any Legal works - broken down for appearances in court – to see how much court time the candidate has had
- List 5 cases that were the most important they've been involved in
- Are there any arbitration or disputes they’ve had or mediated
- Have they applied before –
- Ever been a candidate for public office
- What are the candidate's special contributions to the legal profession
- Any continuing education
- Membership to any legal associations
- Contributions to civic, charitable, cultural, sports orgs been a part of
- Directed or been a part of in any other business not listed
- Ever been sued by client
- Party to any legal proceedings
- Been disciplined by professional court or legal body
- Are there any family or business member on the selection committee
- Do you use drugs
- Filed for bankruptcy
- Any unpaid taxes
- 2 personal references
- 3 professional references
- List attorneys you've dealt with in 3 most recent cases that have gone to trial (a new addition)
Submit with application
- 5 letters of recommendation
- A writing sample
In addition to the application above there is a KBI, and FBI search done on them (aka criminal check) as well as a credit check, and they run an ethics report. Ethics reports are broken into two different groups - lawyers and for judges - they run both checks just on the off chance they've served as a pro-temp judge (stand in judge) or a magistrate judge etc...
Not only do they interview the references, but they also talk to the "last 3 attorney's" the applicant has dealt with in recent cases and the people who wrote the recomendation letters. That is a total of 13 people.
When they are calling references for other candidates they ask the references of those people if they could go over the list of all the applicants and if that person could provide any information about the other candidates as well. So - there were a total of I think 10 candidates for the position. And if there are 13 references given (assuming there is no doubling of names... which there are probably a few) there are 130 people consulted about each applicant. Can you imagine applying for a job and having to give 130 references? That is actually more references or checks than the
NSA asks for in its
application process. But then again - they can tap your phone...
***As I spoke of briefly above - there are some things that are not public - when they go into "executive session." That is essentially when they break to do the interviews, checks, and references...
The reason these are not public is that it covers a number of confidential sources and confidential information like ... social security numbers etc. Let me just say... ID Theft isn't cool.
Too, many of the people interviewed might not feel like they can say whatever they want if the applicant and the public were going to hear what they were going to say. Make sense? So if Judge Joe Public is called he can feel ok about saying "yeah this one time I caught Larry tapping his foot under the stall in efforts to hook up with a guy in the men's room and I think you should know about it..."
According to the AP article
The Johnson County Bar Association and a citizens group called Johnson Countians for Justice are opposing the measure, claiming Golba's group wants to pack the court with conservative-minded judges.
Attorney Greg Musil, who leads the citizens group, said he asked those pushing the ballot measure for an example of an abusive decision by any of the county's 23 district court judges.
"To date, I've not heard one from anybody," Musil said.
Golba and board member Mike Pirner of Lenexa said they couldn't point to specific rulings that upsets them, but said district judges can make "ridiculous" decisions.
Don't you love how subjective someone's "ridiculous" opinions are? I can promise you that what I deem as being ridiculous should never end up on a ballot.
"It's easy to say elections are always good because the public should have a right to decide," said Jean Wise, president of the Johnson County Bar Association. "But judges basically are very different from politicians. They are there to determine the law ... There are a lot of decisions that are legally correct that are not politically correct."
Golba countered that the appointed system has its own politics, and that the commission nominating possible judges to the governor is made up largely of attorneys who aren't likely to support conservative judicial candidates.
I agree with Golba. These panelists aren't likely to appoint judges who are conservative - but they also aren't likely to appoint judges that are liberal. They appoint judges who are impartial and not tied to politics. What happens to Golba's precious plan of these judges move to being elected and we stack the courts with liberal judges?
His point is to elect HIS kind of judges - which fuel his specific issues of choice - not the most qualified, not the ones with the best careers, not the most impartial, and not the most just.
Do you want a judge ruling over your divorce that your spouse gave a $5,000 campaign contribution to?
Also - check out
Johnson Countians for JusticeLabels: activist judges, ballot question, johnson county, judges, judicial review, kansas
printable version
e-mail this story
This week after the Kansas GOP primary I got a tip off about 
Most people don't like process stories because they don't inform people about anything important or essential. I love them because they can actually teach those of us who are involved in non-profits, campaigns, or technology jobs key dos and don'ts. I like to learn new things from people who are infinitely smarter than me and on a couple of things (very few) I think I've got some game.
