(Updated to include reaction from Democrats)
House Speaker Ron Ryckman Jr. on Tuesday urged lawmakers against having any discussions with the judicial branch while there is an ongoing lawsuit over judicial pay.
The Sunflower State Journal obtained an email sent to all members of the House, explaining the possible outcomes of a lawsuit brought by six trial judges on Dec. 20.
In the email, the speaker said legislators should follow the lead of new Supreme Court Chief Justice Marla Luckert, who withdrew from a planned address to the Legislature on Jan. 15.
Luckert bowed out of that speech last week, citing the litigation and judicial conduct code that prohibited commenting on pending cases or talking about the lawsuit without one of the parties present.
“I would suggest we follow the example of the new chief justice and avoid discussions with officials and employees of the judicial branch,” Ryckman said in the email.
“It is our desire that this matter be resolved quickly and full communication between our branches can be restored.”
A court spokeswoman declined to comment late Tuesday afternoon.
House Minority Leader Tom Sawyer understood the frustration of the judicial branch, but did not directly respond to the speaker’s comment.
“For the last 10 years every state agency and institution — prisons, schools, higher ed — have all suffered under Brownback’s disastrous tax experiment,” Sawyer said in a statement.
“We’re working to restore funding to all element so of state government so that it can finally again function properly.”
The speaker’s counsel stands to complicate an already tense relationship between the judiciary and Republican leadership in the Legislature.
Some Republican lawmakers are already angry over the Supreme Court’s decision that found the right to abortion is protected by the state constitution.
They are proposing to amend the constitution so that the Senate would have to confirm the governor’s appointments to the court.
Ryckman’s comments make it unclear how the judiciary would work with the Legislature at a time when it is requesting $17 million for salary increases for fiscal year 2021.
About $7 million of the proposed increases would provide for a 19% salary increase for judges.
The other $10 million requested would go to nonjudges, raising salaries 1.7% to 17.9%.
The lawsuit argues that the Legislature has violated the constitutional separation of powers by chronically underfunding the judicial branch.
The judges contend that the lack of sufficient funding has undercut the judicial branch’s ability to operate as a coequal branch of government.
The lawsuit was filed directly with the Supreme Court, which is now in the uncomfortable position of deciding on pay raises for the judicial branch.
Ryckman’s email laid out four possible outcomes of the lawsuit. The court could:
- Deny the petition.
- Grant the relief the plaintiffs have asked for without a hearing.
- Issue further orders directing the Legislature to respond with established timelines.
- Determine the case should have been brought in district court and transfer or dismiss it.
“At this time we are hopeful the court will choose (to deny the petition) and dismiss this case.”
Until that time, Ryckman urged House members not to have any discussions with judicial branch employees or officers.
Democratic state Rep. John Carmichael questioned if the speaker was acting on the advice of the Legislature’s staff attorneys.
“Is the admonition not to communicate with employees of the Judicial branch your opinion or that of the revisor,” Carmichael asked in an email to the speaker.
“If it is the revisor’s opinion, I request it be provided in writing and that I receive a copy.”
Carmichael told the speaker he thought his comments were too broad.
He said it conflicted with precedent established in the school finance case where legislative counsel took the position there was no lawyer client relationship between legislators and counsel for the House of Representatives.
“If I am in fact a party to the pending litigation who has the attorney general or the revisor appointed to represent me?”
