February 21, 2006
Mr. Chairman and Committee members I appreciate the opportunity to once again stand before you in support of HB 2787 which addresses the residency requirement for District Judges within the 13th Judicial District.
I have provided several attachments that include: Kansas State map defining the boundaries of all 31 Judicial Districts and some statistical data on the make-up of the judicial districts.
Of the 161 district court judge positions statewide, only 7 require the judge to live in a specific county. The 13th Judicial District has 3 such positions. The other 4 are in Districts #9 and # 20. The change I propose will not produce an anomaly, in fact it will bring the district into alignment with the majority (28) of the other state judicial districts.
You heard very passionate testimony as to why this bill should not be considered favorably and although the opponents concerns have merit, I believe the facts I present have validity as well.
Representative Knox comes from the 13th Representative District He presented arguments of shortsightedness and narrow view and this a true urban vs. rural issue. He says the Eureka population is declining, the job markets are shrinking, and with a depressed business environment this could be a death blow to the community. I disagree.
The 31st Judicial District in which Rep. Knox resides has 4 counties with 3 appointed district judges and 1 District Magistrate Judge, none of which are required to live in any specific county. I wonder, "does his own district suffer from at-large representation"?
Representative Miller from the 12th Representative District does represent Elk County and is one of the three counties within the 13th Judicial District. Rep. Miller expressed much of the same concern as all opponents and added the resident of a community has a better knowledge base of the local resources and issues. The Eureka community believes this legislation would further degrade services to a dwindling population and not allow for the same level of services as currently exists. I disagree.
Representative Miller’s own judicial district has 2 counties with 3 elected district judges and 1 magistrate judge, none of which are required to live in any specific county. We have not heard that his own district suffers from at-large representation.
Under our proposal, the court services will remain at the discretion of the chief judge as provided for in state statute. No degradation is intended, the district court will conduct trials, hearings, and other required services as currently exist.
Sheriff Mark Kenneson made the argument; that without a resident district judge the prompt issuance of a search warrant would not be possible. Sheriff Kenneson said "time is of the essence to secure evidence, for the integrity of the scene and for the safety of the deputies..... ..Adding an hour drive for a deputy to obtain a signature for a warrant could be very detrimental to a case..." The current Greenwood County Undersheriff, Dick Clark, resides in El Dorado, perhaps he could act as courier. Of course this assumes the nearest judge is in El Dorado.
By his statement the Sheriff is really making an argument for residency in Eureka. That residency requirement does not exist now. The city of Madison in Greenwood County is approximately 29 miles North (one way), the communities of Oak Valley in Elk county is 53 miles south (one way), the city of Howard also in Elk County is approx. 31 miles south (one way). El Dorado, located in Butler is about 32 miles west (one way).
The issue is actually that the judge should live in Eureka and this is not required under current law. There is probably a 50-50 chance the next judge for this district will be from the Madison area. A judge living here, or in Howard, or Oak Valley would comply with current county residency requirements. Unless some other legal talent moves into the Eureka community who is willing to serve as district judge and can get elected; the judge can live on a ranch 50 miles away.
Some are concerned about having a judge instantly accessible at night only a few blocks from the court house 24/7 and 365 days a year. This is wishful thinking at its best and assumes a judge would never leave home and just sit by the phone waiting for the ‘call". This is a very weak argument with an optimistic outlook. The magistrate can issue the same type of warrant and is likely to be just as accessible.
When you take all the arguments both pro and con one conclusion can be reached. We all want the best possible court services for Greenwood and Elk County; this legislation will help to achieve this goal. The number of available attorneys is being reduced by few business opportunities, slowing economy, lack of legal work, slow to non existence of industrial development, and the loss of population.
I have tried unsuccessfully to reach a compromise that would add language to require a county specific "position" or designate certain cities in which district court must be conducted. Representative Knox has stated this compromise would be very difficult if not impossible. The judges of the 13th and myself believe the "position" must remain dedicated to Greenwood and Elk county and continue to support the amendment that was previously offered.
This issue begs the question, "Is it more important to our judicial district as a whole to draw four good district judges from the largest possible pool, or is it better to make sure that there is always one district judge living in the Greenwood-Elk county area at all costs"?
I thank you again for your patience and consideration. I ask you to pass favorably HB 2787.
Back to News
