Lessons from Kansas’ ‘triple play of 1956’ still ring true today

The beauty of our democracy is the balance of power between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. But if the courts are made up of judges who owe their allegiance to lawmakers — and not the Kansas Constitution — an abuse of power is all but certain.

By

Editorials

April 5, 2022 - 2:14 PM

A threatening number of Kansas legislators want the Kansas Constitution rewritten so that they have final say on who sits on the Kansas Supreme Court.

If approved, the Senate’s Concurrent Resolution 1621 would give the Senate the power to determine whether a governor’s selection to the high court is to their liking.

No other determinants would be required. Just a governor picking his or her candidate and the Senate giving the final say-so.

The legislation failed to pass out of committee by only one vote. 

Senate Majority Leader Ty Masterson, however,  has vowed to continue the effort once the Legislature resumes on April 25.

We’ve been there before. And it was dirty.

The case was the infamous “triple play of 1956” involving then-Gov. Fred Hall, Chief Justice William Smith, and Lt. Gov. John McCuish.

Having lost a chance at re-election in the Republican primary, Gov. Hall greased the wheels so that he would be appointed to the high court. 

To pull it off, Chief Justice Smith, who was eyeing retirement anyway, agreed to resign just days before Gov. Hall’s term was due to expire. 

On the day Smith retired, Gov. Hall conveniently announced his retirement. And, oh yes, he guessed he would take up Smith’s offer to serve on the high court.

Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. McCuish became governor for the remainder of Hall’s term — all of 11 days.

Kansans smelled a rat; rather rats, and in 1958, voters overwhelmingly approved a measure to change the state constitution to say that state judges should be selected on their merits as determined by a rigorous process.

Twenty-two states use the merit system, hailed superior to any other method.

Today’s system requires a nine-member commission consisting of attorneys and lay persons to cull through the dozens of nominees to the high court. They then submit three nominees to the governor, who makes the final decision. 

That could be viewed as politics as well, were it not that those nominated must go through a months-long excruciating vetting system that makes all but the best withdraw.

The system worked to everyone’s satisfaction until the summer of 2005 when partisan politics began to take hold. 

Related