Is the Kansas Supreme Court Selection Process "Fair and Impartial"?

I’ve heard the argument from several directions that we shouldn’t change our state’s Supreme Court selection process, because the current Kansas supreme court method is “fair, impartial, and non-political”.   But is this actually true?    Let’s look at a few details:

• Supreme Court candidates are selected by a board of five lawyers, elected by other lawyers in the state, and four gubernatorial appointees.  [1]  Thus we have a solid majority NOT elected by the voters-at-large, or even appointed by an official they have selected— it is purely an internal vote among the attorneys in the state.    The other four members are explicitly political appointees.

• Attorneys, the only people who can vote for 5/9 of the selection board members, are strongly dominated by one side of the political spectrum— essentially a permanent guarantee of a single party’s political control.   This isn’t just an activist talking point:  prestigious entities such as Harvard’s Journal of Legal Analysis [2] and the American Bar Association [3] have studied the question, and concluded that the legal profession has a solid majority of left-leaning and Democrat views.   The Journal study stated that “some 62 percent of the sample of attorneys are positioned to the left of the midpoint”, and the Bar Association article is titled “Is BigLaw mostly liberal? SCOTUS amicus briefs indicate answer is yes, especially in significant cases”.

Even if you agree with some recent court decisions, is it not troubling that we have handed over total control of Kansas’s highest court, and thus total control of state law, to a body permanently controlled by one political party— regardless of any future change in voter sentiment?   At a minimum, this shows that the current court makeup is not impartial or non-political.   

The fact that we have a Democrat governor but a Republican legislature shows that we live in a closely divided state where both parties have significant support, and the voters’ will might change from election cycle to election cycle.    With an elected court, Kansas voters would have the power to change the court periodically to align with their views— a chance that Kansas voters do not have under the current system.

Thus, I strongly encourage my fellow Kansas to vote YES on the upcoming Kansas Elections for Supreme Court Justices Amendment on August 4th.

References:

[1] https://kscourts.gov/Judges/Become-a-Judge/Supreme-Court-Nominating-Commission

[2] https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/8/2/277/2502548?login=false 

[3] https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/is-biglaw-mostly-liberal-scotus-amicus-briefs-indicate-the-answer-is-yes-especially-in-significant-cases 

Vote NO On The School Bond Next Week

As most of you are hopefully aware, next week we vote on a new bond initiative, to shower more money onto our underperforming Wichita school district.    You have probably guess from my phrasing of the previous sentence that I’m on the “No” side.   I actually wasn’t sure whether it’s necessary to write an article on this topic, since our friends at https://votenobond.com have done such a great job making their case.   (Check out their website for more.).   But it might be good to quickly summarize some key points:

• The “zero rate increase” claim is wishful thinking.   The bond incurs long-term financial obligations, in an unpredictable economic climate, and we cannot be sure about the future of state-level subsidies or property values. 
• Even if “zero rate increase” were true— we deserve a tax BREAK.   The past four years of runaway inflation have stressed the finances of all our households.   Due to this inflation, simply “not increasing” taxes leaves us worse off than a few years ago.
• The Wichita school district spends wastefully while delivering poor quality.    Over the past few decades the district has received hundreds of millions of dollars in bond funding. Yet for all this money, we get declining student scores and rising school violence, as pointed out at the votenobond site.   
• We cannot keep rewarding failure without fundamental change in the district.   Wichita schools spend more per student ($19K+) than most local private schools (for example, Independent at 12K-16K, Trinity at 9K-14K), which generally offer better academics and student safety.   This proves it is possible to educate students at the current level of funding, and the district needs fundamental change rather than another influx of unaccountable funds.

Thus, for these reasons and many others you can find online, please join me in voting NO on the bond next week.

Misguided Anti-School-Choice Argument #1: "Schools Will Close!"

During my recent election campaign, I spent several months knocking on doors around the district and discussing various issues.   While these discussions are still relatively fresh in my mind, I thought it might be fun to use this blog to review some of the more interesting debates I engaged in with local residents.   One of the most common discussions was about my position supporting school choice:  the idea that parents should have the option to choose alternatives like charter schools, or get a partial tax credit to send their child to a private school, if they prefer that over their local public school.   We currently have some very limited choice programs in Kansas, but other states go much further.

I was reminded of one common talking point on this topic recently, when I saw this tweet making the rounds on X:

Of course, the intention of the negative-sounding phrasing “One man’s liberty is another man’s school closure” it to imply that this is a horrible situation— that any time a school is closed, it means something bad has happened to the community, and somehow overall education is negatively impacted.    This argument was brought up by a number of the local residents I spoke to, mainly ones currently or formerly employed by the public school system.

But we need to ask a key question:   Is any individual student not getting educated, or receiving a poorer education due to these school closures?   The answer is clearly No:  in nearly all cases, when the parent chooses a private or charter school, it is in pursuit of a higher-quality education.   Thus the students are generally better off as a result of this policy.    I would judge this policy a huge success, if (as the tweet implies) 10000 kids are now attending schools that better meet their individual needs.  Private schools have consistently been shown to outperform public schools on a variety of measures, even when attended by economically disadvantaged students..   And that is even before we consider other issues like students’ physical safety from violent bullying, dismal at many urban public schools, or the widespread refusal of public schools to fundamentally do their jobs during the COVID panic.

The fact that schools can close is a feature, not a problem, of school choice.   An important key to the long-term success of the US economic system, in comparison to most other countries around the world, has been that businesses have to compete to survive. Those that don’t meet the needs of their customers are allowed to fail.   This causes short-term pain for employees of those businesses, but strengthens the economy overall when the best-performing ones survive.   The same principle applies to schools:  bad ones should close, while good ones continue to thrive.    

Some say it’s unfair to close failing schools, since the teachers are willing to try harder.   Often with changes in management, plus enough effort and time, many poorly performing schools could turn around— but the time to work on such turnarounds is as soon as progress starts to fall behind.   If they are paying attention to their performance, there should be time to make improvements before it gets so dire that a critical mass of parents no longer want their children there.     And in fact, it’s been shown that having this incentive of competition actually does cause public schools to improve.   In other words, the improvements due to school choice are not limited to the students who switch schools:  the existence of this competition benefits even those who remain in place.

The biggest argument I heard against such closures was the fact that hardworking teachers would lose their jobs.   Sure, we all feel bad for the teachers that lose their jobs when a school closes, just like I feel bad for all my former Intel colleagues who were recently laid off when that company’s computer chips fell behind.     But the best teachers, like the best Intel engineers, will soon find other jobs— probably somewhere with better management and policies that enable them to succeed, making their jobs much more satisfying in the long term.   

Ultimately, we need to keep in mind that the school system is an education program for students, not a jobs program for teachers.

 

Congratulations Henry

Well, as I'm sure most of you have heard by now, I lost the election.   In any case, it was a relative longshot from the beginning-- as I may have mentioned, I was challenging a well-known multi-term incumbent, Henry Helgerson, who has been in Kansas politics for decades.   On the positive side, Henry is one of the more conservative Democrats, so is likely to be open-minded about many issues that we are concerned with.    Be sure to contact him through his official website and share your thoughts on issues coming up before the legislature,

What's next for me?   I'll continue to follow Kansas poltiics, and will be blogging periodically on this website as interesting issues come up.   (So please stay subscribed!).  I'm pretty sure I won't be challenging Henry again, but I may get involved in other ways.

Henry, if you happen to read this blog, here are my main hopes for your next term:

• Please consider additional tax cuts and continue to help rein in spending.   As discussed during my campaign, Kansas has an exceptionally high per capita tax burden compared to other states, and we really need to fix that.
• I really liked your past public statements opposing huge omnibus spending bills that are too large to properly debate or understand.   If it's possible to break that pattern and start dividing the budget into a series of smaller, properly debated bills, that would be a great contribution to the future of our state.
• Please consider changing your past vote & helping to stop "gender affirming care" on children.   I really think that due to the shaky scientific foundation, permanent negative effects, and lifetime medical complications, we will one day view these treatments in the same way we view the mid-20th-century's shameful experimentation with lobotomies for mental health.

Speaker Pro Tem Endorses Erik Seligman for District 83-- Don't Be Fooled By Misleading Mailings!

You may have recently received a mailer from my opponent with a huge quote by Kansas House Speaker Pro Tempore Blake Carpenter covering half the page, implying that he has his endorsement.   But this is not the case.  If you read carefully, Carpenter was praising him on one particular issue.   As I’ve mentioned before, my opponent is on the somewhat conservative side for a Democrat, so it’s not surprising that occasionally Republicans praise him on particular issues.    But Carpenter has clearly endorsed *me*, not my opponent, in the current election.  He has supplied the following quote:

I’m proud to endorse Erik Seligman because he will be a strong ally in cutting property taxes and reining in government spending.   The current incumbent often helps sustain the governor’s vetoes on commonsense reforms.  With the governor vowing to block property tax cuts in 2025, we need Erik to help us secure the votes to override her vetoes and bring much-needed relief to Kansans.

So, don’t let yourselves be fooled by my opponent’s misleading mailer!   As I pointed out in one of my other articles,   despite my opponent trying to push the meme that he’s a fiscal conservative, he cannot be relied on to stand up to the governor’s vetoes or significantly reduce taxes and spending.

The Final Month of the Campaign

It's hard to believe it's only another month until Election Day.    Don't forget that there are a number of ways you can still help:

• Spread the word:   Tell your friends about me, and invite them to follow my Facebook page.    If you have a small group of friends who wants to learn more, I'm happy to meet you for coffee sometime!
• Get a yard sign:   I just got a new batch of signs.   Email (erik@wichitaerik.com) or call (503-312-1665) and I'll make sure to put one on your lawn.
• Contribute money:   If you're doing well enough that you can afford to donate, every bit helps!   Email/call me to pick up a check, or Zelle the money directly to erik@wichitaerik.com .

Thanks again for all the support! 

Radio Interview tonight, Sun 9/29, on the John Whitmer Show (8:30)

 Hi everyone-- just a quick post to let you know that I'll be on the John Whitmer Show tonight (9/29) around 8:30.   This is a local Wichita talk show, broadcast on KNSS (98.7/1330) and over the web.   If you get a chance to listen, drop me an email & tell me what you thought!

Cookies With The Candidate, Sunday 9/22, 3-5pm

Join us for Cookies with the Candidate at Kathie Cooper’s backyard (140 S Lynnwood Blvd) this Sunday, 9/22, from 3-5 pm.  Your voice is important:  meet me to share your thoughts, questions, and concerns.  

No charge or monetary contribution needed to attend- just bring yourselves & enjoy some delicious cookies!   All are welcome.   

And as always, if that time isn't good for you, you can email me at erik@wichitaerik.com to set up a chat some other time.

Hope to see you there!

A New Addition to My Campaign Staff

Meet Monkey, the newest addition to our family.    Technically she's a guest-- my sister is spending a year in Spain with her husband & kids, and figured that leaving her with us is better than the trauma of international travel, quarantine laws, etc.   

Not sure how much she'll directly contribute to the campaign, but cute animals get a lot more web views than political debates anyway!   

Come Meet Me This Friday (8/30), 4-7PM, at Sweetpops

Join me for a casual “Meet the Candidate” event at Sweetpops (550 N Rock Rd) Friday 8/30 from 4-7pm. You can drop in any time during those hours to ask questions & discuss your concerns. Your voice matters, and this is a great chance to connect and share your thoughts. Whoever asks me the most interesting question will win a free massage at Sveta's!

Hope to see you there!

School Choice, 2nd Amendment, Balanced Budgets, and Other Issues

Now that we are past the primary, let's discuss positions on a few more issues.   Some have advised me not to do this-  “You’re just giving your opponents ammo to use against you!”   My opponent certainly seems to be taking this advice, as his website still doesn’t seem to have been updated since 2020, and what is there in his Issues section is mostly just a few sentences of broad generalities and obvious fluff.    But that’s not the kind of campaign I want to run:  as I have mentioned before,  I promise to always clearly explain my position on issues of concern, even at the risk that you may not agree with everything I say.   I think open discussion is the key to making American government successful.

Although I am new to Kansas politics, I have served in elected office before, spending four years on the board of one of Oregon’s largest school districts, supervising the education of over 20,000 students.  While there, I continually published a blog explaining my votes and reasoning on key issues.   So today I’ll highlight some of my posts there, to help you better understand where I stand on various topics of importance. 

Here are links to some of the blog articles I wrote on issues debated/voted while serving on that school board.   There’s a lot here, so don’t try to read them all— but be sure to check out my articles on the topics that interest you.   If you want to discuss any of these further, or even if you disagree and want to try to convince me to change my mind, feel free to email me at erik@wichitaerik.com!

Supporting school choice

• Education Savings Accounts in Oregon?

• Real Equity through School Choice

• Does Hillsboro Hold Hostages?

• Who We Represent

Supporting the 2nd Amendment

• Make Hillsboro a Real Sanctuary

• Guns in the Schools

Preventing schools from distributing birth control without parent notification

• Should Your District Get a School Based Health Center?

• War of the Sexes?

• Birth Control in the Schools?

Fairly distributing government money and positions, without insider privileges

• Being Mean to Old People

• The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Education Service District

Opposing waste of government resources & balancing budgets

• State Laws Preventing Responsible School Spending

• Environmental Fanatics Robbing Oregon’s Children

• School Budgeting for the Future

• Balance the School Budget

Opposing minimum wage increases
        - Insulting The Poor

Exposing & opposing racist and anti-semitic “Equity” programs

• Public Schools Encouraging Anti-Semitism

• Advancing Equity Through Ad Hominem Arguments

• Is Meritocracy a Myth?

• How to be Racist in Hillsboro

Not abusing school/government resources to advocate policy

        --   Children as Political Pawns

• Should Public Schools Advertise?

• Oregon’s Politicized School Board Association

Supporting STEM (Science/Tech/Engineering/Math) Education

• STEAMing our STEM into STEAKS

• Comments on the CPM Math Curriculum

• True Career Readiness

Maintaining educational standards 

• Opting Out of SBAC Tests

• Teaching To the Test

• Moving and Confusing the Goalposts

• The Equity Emergency

Keeping your sense of humor

• National Common Sense Week

• Springtime for Student Safety

• An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Vote Jacqueline Kelly for Judge on August 6th

Usually in this blog, I’m focusing on reasons you should vote for me.    That is the point, after all!   But in next week’s primary, I’m unopposed— the place I really need your vote will be in the November election.   So this week, I thought I would focus this blog on a fellow candidate I endorse, who does face a contested primary:   Jaqueline Kelly.

As you can see at her website, https://www.kellyforjudge.org/, she has a great resume:  legal experience in civil cases, criminal cases, and as a city attorney, positions on the Kansas Real Estate Commission and Wichita Ethics Advisory Board, and numerous other volunteer positions— all while raising three children.   I was very impressed with her on the several occasions when we met.

One other important element of her background, which she told me about recently, may not be so obvious from her campaign flyers:   she is an adopted child of Zimbabwean birth.   Having studied the contrast between the systems of government in Zimbabwe and in the US, she especially appreciates being here!    This contrast has deeply informed her legal philosophy, and her sense of how special our system is.    

Zimbabwe is one of the many nations around the world that promised improved “fairness” and a "just society", if only the government could reduce the inconvenient barriers of personal freedom and give itself complete power— and ended up creating misery for the vast majority.   (You can see many more examples of those failures in my Stories of Communism podcast.)   It is very important that we have judges in place who understand our country’s fundamental and unique principles of individual freedom and limited government power.

Thus, on August 6th, I’ll be voting for Jacqueline Kelly for judge, and hope you will join me.

Protect Children From Misguided "Gender-Affirming" Care

As I knock on doors, I’ve received a lot of questions related to my concerns about “gender-affirming” care taking place on underage children.    After all, how can anyone oppose being “affirming”?   But what is actually taking place is an extreme course of medical treatment:   drugs, hormones, and surgeries to alter the physical anatomy of a child’s breasts and genitals, and drastically interfere with their normal reproductive development.   These treatments often begin at very young ages, and have permanent effects on a child’s life:   sterilization, sexual dysfunction, non-reproductive side effects like bone weakness, and permanent wounds that require (sometimes painful) daily care.  Children are being asked, and encouraged, to commit to this treatment at an age when they aren’t even allowed to decide on a tattoo.   There are a few key points to keep in mind about these treatments:

• There is no credible evidence that these treatments prevent suicide or have any other net benefits for children, which is why some European countries have backed off the “gender-affirming” care model.   The comprehensive Cass Review, commissioned by the UK’s National Health Service, argues persuasively that we simply don't have enough evidence for these drastic medical interventions.    For treatments with these kinds of permanent, irreversible effects, we need to demand a high standard of statistically significant, persuasive, positive evidence— a standard the medical community is nowhere near achieving.     And because widespread childhood gender transition is so new, it’s literally impossible to have reliable data on its long-term effects.

• Parents receive extreme pressure from activist medical professionals to transition their children to “prevent suicide”.   If a pro-trans psychiatrist or doctor is treating a child and thinks they might be transgender, they commonly tell the parents that supporting the transition is critical to preventing suicide.   The Cass Review showed clearly that there is no credible evidence to support this claim.   Yet therapists regularly use the line, famously documented in Chloe Cole’s detransition lawsuit,  “would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?”    How many parents, previously uninformed on this issue, would dare to question the therapist’s advice after that?     This is why I’m not swayed by the common argument that legislation on this matter is somehow interfering in a decision that should just be left to families and their doctors:  the families are often given extremely biased advice to terrorize them into unconditionally supporting their child’s transition.

• Medical interventions for a child who is diagnosed as transgender can begin as early as age 8, and have many long-term health consequences .    How can a child understand their “gender” before experiencing puberty, which is when critical reproductive processes and instincts are developed?    Puberty blockers can be prescribed as early as age 8, according to a New York Times report, and are often prescribed around age 10-11.  According to the same report, these have been linked to severe long-term harm, most notably by suppressing a growth period when a child’s bones mature.   In addition, one of the nation’s leading transgender advocates, Dr. Marci Bowers, has been caught on video admitting that these treatments often cause permanent sexual dysfunction.    And the puberty blockers are just the beginning:  children under 18 are often subjected to surgical treatments as well, and Dr Bowers has also bragged of performing “vaginoplasties”, creation of a permanent wound where the genitals used to be, in boys as young as 16.  

• Once a child is started on a gender transition, it is very difficult to stop the process, even if they start to have doubts.   The “gender-affirming” care model demands that once a child states they are transgender, the physical and psychological caregivers must consistently “affirm” their new identity, without ever questioning it or seeking other underlying psychological issues.    (How many other situations are there where a therapist is required to unconditionally affirm a patient’s initial self-diagnosis???).  Typically a child will build their entire social life around the new transgender identity, as well as receiving constant pressure from their new trans-activist friend group and the pro-trans medical professionals who are currently treating them.   For a child who is already uncomfortable and socially awkward, this can make it psychologically impossible to turn back if they later have second thoughts.    As one doctor wrote in a NY Post article, “I saw children being fast-tracked onto medical solutions for psychological problems, and when kids get on the medical conveyor belt, they don’t get off.   But the politicization of the issue was shutting down proper clinical rigor. That meant quite vulnerable kids were in danger of being put on a medical path for treatment that they may well regret.”

Thus, for these reasons and many others, I think it’s imperative that the Kansas legislature take action to protect children in our state from this dangerous and unwarranted medical experiment.   If elected, I will make it a priority to re-introduce legislation, like the bill that the incumbent recently voted against, to ban these treatments in anyone under 18.