Many Arguments re: KS Amendment to Elect Judges are Bogus

The Johnson County Post does a great job of pre-election reporting.  In an unusual situation, I wrote the following email to their editor (Kyle Palmer) suggesting that the Post could do a better job on the proposed KS constitutional amendment to elect judges.  If you want to know how I currently lean, look past the asterisks near the bottom of this post. 

A key piece of information in this article is: “The actual judicial selection process occurs in meetings that are available to the public, both online and in person. All records created during the process are public, as well.”  Can you distribute an appropriate recording and/or records, so voters can judge how the system is working?  Data you pick, not one that is selected for you.

I’m quite torn on this issue.  On the one hand, I like merit and don’t trust the politicians pushing this issue.  On the other hand, it is far from clear that the current system is a good one and just because I don’t favor someone does not mean that they aren’t right on some issues.  Our USA Supreme Court had a good approach: selected by the President, confirmed by the Senate.  But then the Senate decided to start “Borking” candidates, and candidates became extremely disingenuous in responding to questions.  Our political system works best when politicians and regulators work in good faith; that has been becoming less common.

Many of the arguments are bogus.  I think you could do a better job of demonstrating which arguments are bogus as I will outline below.

Before citing bogus arguments, I’d like to note what I think is a key point that I have not seen reported: Elections will pressure judges to take a position before hearing a case.  They should decide only after hearing both sides’ attorneys and discussing the principles with their peers on the bench.  In an election, they will be pressed to take a position, which will then somewhat paint them into a corner.

Two recent Johnson Post articles say: “It would also open the door for justices to participate in political parties and campaigns and to contribute financially to them, though a lot of details about how that might work remain undecided.”

The current law says:

§ 8. Prohibition of political activity by justices and certain judges. No justice of the supreme court who is appointed or retained under the procedure of section 5 of this article, nor any judge of the district court holding office under a nonpartisan method authorized in subsection (a) of section 6 of this article shall directly or indirectly make any contribution to or hold any office in a political party or organization or take part in any political campaign.”

The suggested law says:

§ 8. Prohibition of political activity by justices and certain judges. No judge of the district court holding office under a nonpartisan method authorized in subsection (a) of section 6 of this article shall directly or indirectly make any contribution to or hold any office in a political party or organization or take part in any political campaign, except when such judge is a candidate for election to a position on an appellate court.”

The intent seems to be that a judge to contribute to and participate only in his/her own political campaign.  Should that be reported?  I suppose the wording could be interpreted to mean that when they are a candidate, they could also contribute… to other campaigns.  If that is a concern, it would be good to report the wording and mention that ambiguity.

“nominees’ political affiliation is not factored in at all”.  However, with such a thorough process, the candidates’ leanings are likely to be obvious, even without specifically asking about their political affiliations.  Is there any way the Post can identify how recent judges have divided politically?  Is there any way the Post can identify whether members of the KS bar and, more importantly, those voting in the nomination process, reflect the distribution of political leanings of the public?

Judges should make decisions based on the law, not what they think is popular.  (Good point.)  But the anti-amendment people claim that the change is fueled by people who don’t like the abortion, hence will result in abortion not being protected.  Kansans voted 60% to keep abortion legal, so if judges are swayed by what is popular, wouldn’t that protect abortion?

People already get to vote to retain a judge.  Retention elections are not meaningful.  Judges run uncontested and there is no information.  No KS Supreme Court justice has ever lost a retention election in well over 100 retention elections..  (Shouldn’t that be reported?)  Even the judges who overturned the Carr murder sentences were retained   Even if there was information, there would be a strong incumbency bias.

The law was changed ~60 years ago because of corruption.  But past corruption had NOTHING to do with the voting process!  The Fred Hall “Triple Play” occurred because there was NO election for between-election vacancies.  By the same token, “by the 1940s, that practice was falling out of favor due to concerns about corruption from wealthy individuals essentially buying seats on courts with large campaign contributions” relates to people buying appointed judge seats, not elected judge seats.  (To be clear, the concern that large local and outside donations could sway elections is a valid concern.)

21 states use a model like KS.  Pro-amendment supporters note that the other states have the same number of attorneys and non-attorneys with an additional attorney who votes only as a tie-breaker.  They criticize KS as being the only state with a majority of attorneys always voting.  That criticism doesn’t make sense to me.  The attorneys’ advantage in having 5 members on the commission is relevant only in 5-4 votes; hence it is no different than a tie-breaker.

The Supreme Court has heard 8 KS cases since 2007 and overturned 7 of them.  This is pertinent but not a huge point.  Nationwide since 2007, the Supreme Court has overturned 71.4% (938 out of 1313).  If this is reported, it should be noted that one less KS reversal would drop the KS percentage to 75% like the rest of the country.  So, this data does not seem reliable.  The Supreme Court agrees to hear very few cases, thus they pick ones that they are likely to overturn.  The volatility of these statistics is confirmed because, prior to 2007, KS had a low percentage overturned (about 55%) whereas the rest of the USA was about 73%.

I haven’t yet watched the event your article cited.  It appears that both participants are anti-amendment, but that wasn’t highlighted.  When I watch it, I might decide that it is balanced.

***************************************************

If the election was today, I would vote against the amendment for the following reasons:

1. Judges are inherently different from legislators and the governor.  They should make decisions based on the law, not what they think is popular. 
2. Elections would pressure judges to take a position before hearing a case.  They should decide only after hearing both sides’ attorneys and discussing the principles with their peers on the bench.
3. The proposed wording is ambiguous.

 

Kansas Law Regarding Teaching DEI and CRT

Kansas passed a law that prohibits state universities from requiring students to enroll in a “DEI-CRT” course.  So, the Board of Regents needed to clarify the meaning.

The Board of Regents concluded that required classes could not intentionally establish and promote the preferential treatment of groups based on race, color, gender, ethnicity or national origin, nor the theory of racism being systemic within laws, policies or institutions. Those topics could be present as subjects of scholarly, historical or legal study.

This KC Star article about this law catalogues the concerns of faculty, administrators, etc. that the law could stifle academic freedom and proper discussion of these topics.

I posted the following comment, which was the first comment posted: "There seems to be a clear distinction between even-handed discussion and "promotion". While I like FIRE's position, most of our nation's colleges and universities have been teaching slanted political education for decades and discouraging free political speech, as FIRE has documented. The academics are using "academic freedom" cries to defend their abuse of academic freedom. I'd be delighted if the universities and colleges offered a better way than this law to correct the bias in their education. In this article, they did not do so."

What do you think?

Why does ACLU keep lying about trans athletes in girls' sports?

I wrote this email to three ACLU staff I admire:  

You are among those people in ACLU whom I greatly admire.  Therefore, I’d like to offer this constructive feedback.  There is no need for you to respond to me.

I understand why ACLU chooses to support transgender athletes.  Disagreeing with ACLU on that issue does not undermine my interest in donating to ACLU. 

But ACLU’s lies about the issue do cause me to consider discontinuing donations to ACLU.

In the message below, ACLU wrote: “the Court has allowed transphobic politicians to ban trans girls from participating in school sports”.  Other sources accurately reported that the Court banned trans girls from participating in girls’ sports.  They can still participate in boys’ sports.  Similarly, the ACLU wrote: “"Trans children shouldn't be denied the benefits of teamwork and dedication because of who they are."  The ACLU is free to explain why it feels the alternative of competing in sports based on birth gender is inadequate, but lying is unacceptable. 

It is also wrong to suggest that people who disagree with the ACLU on this issue are “transphobic”.  I think “transphobic” was used to trigger an emotional reaction painting people who disagree with this ACLU position as reprehensible.  It is sad that ACLU actively tries to divide us.  While not technically “hate language”, the wording of your message clearly induces hatred, which apparently is acceptable to ACLU if it will help raise funds.

You might say the message technically labels only the politicians as transphobic.  But clearly it is wrong to paint all politicians who support banning trans girls from girls’ sports as transphobic.  I think if someone wants to change their gender, they should be allowed to do so, with appropriate safeguards.  But if politicians who oppose trans girls in girls’ sports are “transphobic” in your eyes, then I must be “transphobic” in your eyes also.

ACLU says “We should be removing barriers for girls and women in sports … not creating new ones.”  That is at best misleading.  Most people in the country believe that the court DID remove a barrier.  If ACLU feels that people born male don’t have advantages in sports, why doesn’t it argue that no sports should be segregated by gender?

In the past, ACLU insisted that everyone benefits from allowing trans girls to participate in girls’ sports, which is patently false.  Girls who lose championships to trans girls are harmed.  Girls who lose scholarships as a result are harmed.  Girls who are injured by trans girls or who injure themselves by over-training in an attempt to compete with trans girls are harmed.  I understand that you might feel such results are acceptable because of the benefits you see in allowing trans girls to compete in girls’ sports.  You should acknowledge the point honestly and discuss the offsets.  If you prefer, you could ignore this point, but ACLU should publicly retract such lies.  I haven’t seen that statement recently, but I don’t know if ACLU has decided to retire it permanently.

ACLU writes “transgender girls – who've asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers.”  Of course, the fundamental disagreement is “who are their peers when it comes to sports”.  ACLU is so disrespectful regarding the attitudes of other people, disingenuously stating as a fact what is simply ACLU’s opinion.

When I see such communication, I’m ashamed to have supported ACLU.  Again, not because of ACLU’s position supporting allowing trans girls to play in girls’ sports, but because of ACLU’s lies, misrepresentations, divisive tactics, and disrespect for opposing viewpoints.

From: ACLU <aclu@aclu.org>

Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:34 AM
To: claude.thau@gmail.com
Subject: The Supreme Court ruled against trans kids

 

Trans children shouldn't be denied the benefits of teamwork and dedication because of who they are.

 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

Claude, the Supreme Court issued a heartbreaking ruling yesterday against transgender girls – who've asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers. By ruling against our clients, the Court has allowed transphobic politicians to ban trans girls from participating in school sports, keeping these kids from playing with their friends simply because of who they are. We should be removing barriers for girls and women in sports – like unequal pay and harassment – not creating new ones. The handful of children targeted by this ruling deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity as anyone else. However, the fight is not over. Notably, the Court did not grant what we know the politicians driving this issue wanted from the start – a broad precedent restricting the freedom of all transgender people in our schools, workplaces, and communities. They chose not to broaden the harm of this ruling to other rights and contexts. We're already preparing for what's next. We've been fighting a wave of anti-trans legislation for years – and the politicians who wanted even more from the Court will certainly introduce more sweeping attacks on our rights. In the meantime, we're calling on Congress to pass the No Place for LGBTQ+ Hate Act – a critical piece of legislation that would block the president from using federal funds to carry out discriminatory, unconstitutional anti-trans executive orders. Are you ready to keep up the fight with us? Urge Congress to pass legislation that would block President Trump from using taxpayer money to restrict trans people's freedom to be who they are and thrive. Take Action   We cannot and will not go backward. Thank you for staying with us in the fight for our freedom. The ACLU Team P.S. RSVP to join us Tuesday, July 7, 5 – 6 p.m., at the ACLU Town Hall: Inside the Supreme Court Term where we'll discuss this case and other major civil liberties rulings of this term. The event will stream live on YouTube.

My cousin, Georgina

I recently visited with my cousin, Georgina, whom I hadn’t seen in a long time.

While she visited, we saw a program about vaccines, which triggered Georgina’s anger.  She was very upset that people don’t trust the science of vaccine safety. 

When I complimented Georgina for not being distracted from the scientific evidence, she diverted to criticizing people who claim that the 2020 election was stolen for Donald Trump with voting abuses.  “People believe what they want to believe” she bemoaned, “regardless of the facts”.

I complimented her for focusing on reality rather than conspiracies, as well as acknowledging truths that seem irrefutable to me.

While encouraging, it was a bit incongruous to hear Georgina make these comments.  Like many people, when she says "trust the science" or "trust the facts", she really means "trust what I believe".

Georgina is my aunt Laura’s child.  I remember seeing Aunt Laura obviously pregnant before Georgina’s birth and seeing her breastfeed Georgina.

I also remember that a paternity test confirmed that Harvey is Georgina’s father, as Aunt Laura had maintained.

But Georgina does not accept that Laura and Harvey are her parents.  Georgina claims they were assigned as her parents on her birth certificate, but he knows that Taylor Swift gave birth to her and that Travis Kelce is her father.

When I asked her how that could be possible, as both Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce are younger than she is, she got exasperated, saying that no matter how much I wanted to deny the truth, she knew who her parents are.

Her parentage beliefs are even more interesting because she identifies as “African-American”.  You can imagine she wasn’t happy when I observed that Laura and Harvey and Taylor and Travis are all Caucasian.  She responded that you can’t trust the racial identity that was assigned on her birth certificate or on their birth certificates. 

As further proof of the inaccuracy of her birth certificate, she told me she was born in Liberia, not Boston (as printed on her birth certificate).  The deception of her birth certificate is exposed, she said, when you realize that the doctor assigned as having done the delivery never even set foot in Africa.

As everything on her birth certificate was arbitrarily assigned, you can’t trust her supposed birth date either.  The inaccuracy of her assigned birth date suggests to her that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce also have inaccurate birth dates.

I can’t imagine how she got to be so big if she was born fairly recently, but she maintains that she was a giant baby whose birth weight and length was made up because the doctor didn’t think anyone would believe that a baby female could be so large and heavy.

Oh yeah, one more thing: Georgina’s birth certificate shows her given name was “George”.  Although I remember seeing the appropriateness of her gender “assignment” when “she” was bathed as an infant, she maintains, of course, that her name and gender were assigned with no scientific justification.

What can we do to boost ethical behavior in our society?

 When I started reading the  The Neuroscience of Morality/www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-brain-science-reveals-about-ethical-decline-and-moral-growth/, it seemed obvious and not very helpful.  However, the quotes below support actions described further below.  I’d be interested in whether you agree that we need to instill ethics more and your thoughts as to how we can do so.

Quotes

At the end of page 3: “It's easier for people to act morally when they embrace bottom-line values that they'll uphold no matter what. Gonell's grandfather would remind him, "Never tell lies" - a principle that stayed with him.”

From page 8, I picked the following quotes:

·        “At an institutional level, one way to ward off downward moral slides might be to increase the penalties tied to each stage of moral descent-say, by announcing zero-tolerance antifraud company policies-and to underscore the rewards of holding the moral line. Leaders of organizations can, for instance, swiftly address transgressions and help employees get comfortable with admitting mistakes. In a Maastricht University study, participants whose bosses showed ethical leadership engaged in fewer corrupt acts such as offering bribes. Generally speaking, fraud and cover-ups seem less enticing in ethical workplace cultures, and telling the truth feels like an obligation, not an act of career sabotage.”

·        “Once people decide to act with integrity, their resolve is often socially contagious.”

·        “Psychologists such as Zeno Franco of the Medical College of Wisconsin suggest cultivating what he calls the "heroic imagination": our individual capacity to consider ahead of time what we'll do in situations that call for moral courage, what values we will stand behind even under extreme pressure. In this kind of "What would I do?" scenario, the brain's frontal cortex helps people anticipate how they will feel when they make certain moral choices, and those predicted feelings can influence their decisions in the long run.

Actions

1. The above explain why the “broken windows” law enforcement policy is successful.  It was formulated by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in a 1982 Atlantic article [1] and implemented by Police Chief William Bratton when Rudy Giuliani* was mayor of New York, with outstanding results.
2. Parents and other role models should demonstrate and emphasize character.  That includes explaining our actions and considerations to our chidren.
3. We should teach about heroes.  We should teach DEI by showing heroes of various backgrounds showing the same moral fiber and goals, without categorizing them.  We should allow our sameness to show through naturally and demonstrate that people with diverse ethnicities, experiences and ways of looking at situations help us by providing more food and music diversity as well as better ways to solve problems.
4. Schools and streets should be named after individuals, and it should be made easy to learn why those people are being honored.  For example, QR codes could be posted on street signposts.
5. It is beneficial to protect religious rights, partly because religion instills character.  (I think the current Supreme Court has done an excellent job in this regard.)
6. More discussion or research seems appropriate as regards dealing with the frailties of our heroes.
1. I favor acknowledging that our Founding Fathers included slaveowners and did not accord rights to women despite their “all men are created equal” beliefs. 
2. However, emphasizing these failings might make it easier for people to later justify their unethical behavior because “everyone does something unethical”.
3. Perhaps we should focus on those historic failures as a societal failure rather than focusing on the individuals.  The bigger issue is how to avoid such travesties, rather than to assign blame.
4. We should understand the circumstances that existed at the time.  For example, in Robert E. Lee’s time, few people had traveled outside their home state.  Loyalty to their state exceeded loyalty to the federal government.  (Robert E. Lee had a great amount of integrity and only reluctantly decided to serve the South.)  Understanding then-current social thoughts does not excuse unethical behavior but does explain factors that contributed to it. 
5. We should clearly applaud those people who rejected improper societal norms, whether or not their efforts to overturn improper behavior were successful.
7. We should consider criticism we receive.  Why should other societies respect us when our vocabulary includes terms such as “plausible deniability”?
8. We should hold our institutions accountable.  We, as voters and citizens, don’t do this well.

*It should go without saying that supporting Rudy Giuliani's (some of) actions as mayor does not mean I support things he did later in his life.

Redistricting to encourage purple districts

 

A friend of mine suggested using AI to draw political districts with the following parameters:

1. Population difference between districts, largest to smallest, <5%
2. Contiguous districts
3. Districts should respect political boundaries, cities, counties.
4. Districts should respect physical boundaries, rivers, etc.
5. Districts should be as compact as possible.
6. Re-districting be limited to 10 year intervals.

I suggested a 7^th parameter: “Favor creating districts in which neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have more than 55% of the registered voters.”

Why might we want to do that?  Before listing the reasons, I’d like to stress that the districts would still adhere to the other rules.  This might simply stretch a district to the [east] instead of to the [north].

1. According to 2026 analysis from FairVote and the Cook Political Report, 81% to 85% of our 435 U.S. House districts are considered "safe" for one party.  This has developed due to one-party gerrymanders, to the parties agreeing to create safe districts for each other, and to housing patterns.
2. In safe districts, the election is determined in the primary.  Extremists are more likely than moderates to vote in primaries.  When primary voters can be confident that whoever they nominate will be elected, they can satisfy their extremist preferences.  So, extremists are nominated in the dominant party’s primary, then are elected because it is a “safe” district.
3. Members of the minority party justifiably feel disenfranchised.  They have no chance of winning and don’t even have any moderating influence.
4. Moderates of the majority party, whether they participated in the primary or not may feel disenfranchised, even though they had a shot at influencing the election in the primary.
5. The process encourages political disengagement by members of minority parties and perhaps independents and moderates of the dominant party.
6. There is little penalty or discipline for incumbents who perform their job in extremely partisan fashion.  With purple jurisdictions, a weak incumbent is much more likely to be replaced.
7. The advantage of incumbents is enhanced with safe districts.  Thus, safe districts increase the average age of political representatives.  Generally, that creates risks due to declining health and capabilities.  It generally reduces legislative familiarity with current technology, etc.  And it underrepresents young people.
8. Generally, it is very good from us to hear from each other.  For example, rural and city areas are not islands; we are interdependent.  Thus, it can be helpful to have a mix of rural and urban in a district.

I admit that if all districts had the same percentage distribution, each district would have a majority of the dominant party.  Hence Congress could theoretically have 100% of its members from the dominant party.  Similarly, the 14% Black voters could have no Black representative.  I don’t think we vote so arbitrarily, hope that we won’t do so, and believe strongly that we should educate to undermine such “identity” voting.  Other steps could be taken to address such issues, but I those are separate topics.

Fundamental Problems in Our Society

 Our society has very serious fundamental problems.

1. Most politicians of both political parties divide us because enraged voters are more likely to vote, more likely to contribute money, and more likely to attempt to influence other voters.
2. Most media sources amplify the divide because it means more eyeballs, which means more money for advertising. 
3. Some non-profits also divide us because it leads to more donations.
4. Many schools teach people to see themselves as victims and often teach diversity backwards, emphasizing superficial differences (~identity politics), then indicating that people should get along instead of teaching our similar goals and motivations and pointing out that we can achieve our goals better with input from people with diverse experiences.  They trap inner-city students in inadequate educational institutions.
5. Few people do much to correct this situation.  They continue to support culpable politicians without protest; they engage in the media; and they continue to support their same charities blindly.