Anti-abortion activists are hoping they can ignite a statewide backlash to a Kansas Supreme Court decision earlier this year that recognizes a womans right to abortion.
Their goal is threefold: To get a constitutional amendment that bans abortion on the 2020 ballot; to unseat the justices up for retention in 2020 and to change how justices to the Supreme Court are selected.
Events in Iowa likely serve as inspiration.
In 2009, six years before the U.S. Supreme Court made same-sex marriage the law of the land, Iowa Supreme Court Justices said the rights of heterosexual married couples should be extended to those of the same sex.
In the ensuing election, every justice up for retention was given the boot.
The justices defeat came solely at the hand of ultra-conservatives who contended the justices did not represent public sentiment.
Groups from across the nation the American Family Association, the National Organization for Marriage, The Family Leader said the activist justices were imposing their personal values on Iowans at their own peril.
But lets be clear: The growing pressure by special interest groups on justices is the real danger. And those who claim to wave the flag of democracy in the name of such efforts actually imperil an independent judiciary, a cornerstone of our nation.
Judges must use the law as their lodestar, nothing more. Their job is to interpret the law, safe from any individuals or groups influence.
Effort to make our courts mirrors of public sentiment compromise more than their impartiality. They jeopardize the rights of minorities and lesser-known, but equally important, issues.
Judges would be less likely to protect minority rights even though protected by their state constitution if they feel it would threaten their chances for retention.
KANSAS FACES such a future if radical groups are allowed to hold justices hostage. In 2014, a quickly organized Kansans for Justice worked for the defeat of Supreme Court Justices Eric Rosen and Lee Johnson so that then-Gov. Sam Brownback could appoint a more conservative-leaning bench.
Fortunately, voters saw through the ruse and retained the justices for another six years.
After that setback, Brownback pushed to either be given the sole power to appoint justices, with Senate approval, or have justices directly elected to their positions. Both measures failed to gain legislative approval.
