On Monday, we published small capsules with key questions that the Supreme Court Nominating Commission asked of 10 candidates seeking to fill an opening on the Kansas Supreme Court. Today, we bring you the last of the 15 interviews, including one of the three who was recommended to the governor for the court. Earlier Tuesday, the committee recommended three candidates to the governor.
Larkin Walsh, Leawood
Senior counsel at the Kansas City firm Stueve Siegel Hanson. She previously worked as a research attorney for former state Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier and as a law clerk to U.S. District Judge Carlos Murgia. She worked at two previous law firms – Chinnery, Evans and Nail as well as Sharp Law, before joining her current firm. The commission recommended her to the governor as a possible appointment to the court.
Snippets from interview
Asked why she was the most qualified candidate: Walsh emphasized her advocacy work representing people whether it was helping ensure that oil and gas companies didn’t shortchange farmers on the royalties they were due under their leases to representing satellite installation technicians who were classified as independent contractors so their employers didn’t have to pay them overtime. She also pointed to her experience arguing cases in the appellate courts. “I think all of that practical experience has given me a really clear perspective and understanding of the importance of access to justice and the importance of a fundamentally fair process. I represent people. I understand the litigants. I understand the claims. I understand what’s at stake. I think that gives me a unique perspective.” She added that her work in federal district court gave her insight into the differences between a trial court and an appellate court. “My 20 years of experience have instilled in me the importance of the standard of review that applies to trial-court decisions when they’re on appeal and the importance of…access to justice and a fair process.”
Asked if there was any role for creativity in interpreting the law as a judge: “I think, as a judge, it’s a difficult question to answer, particularly as an appellate judge. If you looked at my resume, my background is in the arts. Being creative is something that is innate to me, and I value that part of my personality and my approach because I do think it enables me to build consensus, find points of agreement, maybe thinking about things in a different way or describing things in a different way that can help people see a different perspective. I do see a place for creativity in the judiciary, but ultimately, you’re working within a very proscribed set of rules and laws. As the court of last resort, sometimes creativity is important in reaching results.”
Asked about her philosophy in interpreting the constitution: “I think the answer is no. I don’t have a particular philosophy in regards to constitutional interpretation. I do view the members of the court as the last resort safeguard of the guarantees that are set forth in that document and that they are protectors and interpreters of those rights that we the people set out for ourselves. I suppose the philosophy is one of approaching that with a great deal of respect, approaching case law, interpreting the constitution with a great deal of respect. I don’t think I have a particular judicial philosophy if you’re thinking about like textualism. I think the exercise of restraint is important. I think closely reasoned decisions are important when you’re dealing with constitutional issues.”
Robert James Wonnell, Olathe
A district judge in Johnson County since 2015. He was appointed to the bench in 2015 by former Republican Gov. Sam Brownback. He was an attorney in private practice from 2001 to 2015 at the firm, McAnany, Van Cleave and Phillips, in Kansas City, Kansas. Lost by one vote to make the panel of candidates recommended to the governor to name to the court.
Snippets from interview
Asked if the Kansas Constitution is dynamic or static: “I think it’s a case-by-case situation. As we start with the constitution as this original document, we need to apply the certain facts of the case to it. Obviously, there is the spectrum of is it a living document or a document to live by. I think you have to look at everything on a case-by-case basis. When you get into the constitution, it has certain terms that as they’re written require some type of external analysis. We are, under the Fourth Amendment, not to have unreasonable searches and seizures. We are not to have excessive bails. When you look at those adjectives of excessive and unreasonable, there has to be some kind of context. I think everyone, especially a Supreme Court justice, when they view the constitution, has to start from the position of what does the document say. What is the constitution and look at the facts and apply that to it. When necessary for that particular case, look at an external type of application or rationale. But I think you’re starting point has to be static or textualism, understanding that you’re going to have to expand from that from time to time.”
Asked how he separates his personal views from his work as a judge if he is required to apply a law that he disagreed with: “I can generically say that I’ve done that. I’ve applied a law that I did not agree with. But that’s my job and that’s what we want our justices to do. The role isn’t what does this particular person personally think. We don’t want that no matter what your personal belief. You don’t want a judge who does that. You want a judge or justice that understands their role, understands the separation of powers, understands the application of the constitution to the case and controversy in front of him or her. That’s not what any Kansan wants or deserves is just a judge doing what they think is best. Knowing that and appreciating that, I think, makes it a lot easier to apply it in my daily work.”
Asked what separates him from the other candidates: “I can tell you in my heart I have a passion for justice. I have a passion that everyone is treated equally. I have a passion that we work to make sure that everyone has access to justice, even those who society may have only viewed as existing on the periphery or within the margins. I love what I get to do every day. I can’t believe I get do it. I don’t know that the other 14 applicants don’t possess that, but I know that I do. In addition to really loving justice and being grateful that I get to work in that field, I also love the state of Kansas and the idea of working to advance and promote justice across this state.”
Meryl Carver-Allmond, Lawrence
raining director for the Kansas Board of Indigents’ Defense Services. Also worked as a Kansas capital appellate defender who handled direct appeals of death penalty cases in the Kansas appellate courts. She was the Kansas capital appellate defender from 2012 to 2021.
Snippets from interview
Asked about her philosophy in interpreting the constitution: “I don’t know that it’s one that fits neatly into a box of, you now, textualists or modernists or all the categories that people use. My first stop when looking at a constitutional issue is to look at the text of the constitution. If the text is clear, I think you’re done there. I think that’s pretty easy. I also think that at a certain point – as they say, Thomas Jefferson didn’t have a cellphone – you have to extrapolate a little bit from what they meant those words to mean and then apply it to a modern situation. I think you can usually find the answers in the text and if not, you look at the legislative history around the time what people thought words meant. I would say textualism but with a little pragmatism thrown in there, too.”
Asked about the biggest challenge facing the Supreme Court in the next five years: “Obviously the constitutional amendment is looming. I think that goes back to outreach and educating the public about the merits of the different systems,” she said, alluding to the constitutional amendment that would move the state to elections to pick Supreme Court justices. “Technology is also a huge challenge. Keeping up with IT security is a huge part of my job now, making we sure know what the latest and greatest is. I think AI is going to be a huge challenge.”
Asked about her views on the death penalty and how she would separate that from her work on the court: “Practically speaking, right now every case that I have worked on is at the habeas stage. So, some of those are going to be coming back to the court. I would be recused from all of those, obviously. I think there are four or five still that I directly touched as counsel. I am not sitting on any of those cases.” She said there haven’t been any new death sentences in Kansas since 2016 and there’s nothing imminently headed in that direction. She said she hoped she would have time to establish a record as a fair justice for litigants to trust her. She said if she believed parties couldn’t trust her, she would recuse herself from those cases.
Krystal Vokins, Lawrence
Assistant director of training for the Kansas State Board of Indigents’ Defense Services. Also has worked at Kansas Disciplinary Administrator’s Office as a deputy disciplinary administrator. She previously worked at the Sloan law firm as a research attorney but also had experience in civil litigation, consumer protection and child in need of care matters. Her practice there focused on civil litigation, business transactions and litigation, family and divorce law, and appellate practice. She also was a research attorney for the Johnson County District Court.
Snippets from interview
Asked why she wanted to be on the court: “I am seeing universally, not just in Kansas, a more negative perception of the judiciary. I think that is based on a lack of understanding of the judiciary and how the system is supposed to work. That’s concerning to me. I’m seeing the judicial system and judges being used in partisan politics to make arguments for and against certain policies. I’m hearing references to judicial activists, which was never something that even came to my mind or that I ever heard of before recent times. That’s deeply concerning because I have a sincere respect for the law and our judicial system and I know how it operates. I know that the vast majority of judges, if not all, take their jobs very seriously and they go to great lengths to be impartial. I want to be part of showing that is the case.”
Asked what separates her candidacy from the other candidates: “The diversity of legal experience is very important here. I found that I developed an understanding of my clients better, their types of cases, their interests, the opposing party’s interests. Every time I delve into a new area of the law, there are different procedures involved that can be very different from the other types. I think my diverse practice would be an asset on this bench. I’m not sure everybody gets to experience that in their legal practice, especially at my age. I’m probably one of the younger applicants, if not the youngest. I also think that is an asset. I would come into this role knowing that I don’t know everything. I think that judges should be continual learners, continual students of the law because you don’t just get to practice one area of the law when you’re a judge. You see every single case that comes through the courts in Kansas. Of course, the Supreme Court doesn’t hear all of them, but they get to see a lot of different types of areas of the law.” She said her diverse legal background demonstrated that she can dig into new areas of the law and quickly become an expert. She said her work in the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator’s Office would assist her on the court, which oversees disciplinary cases.
Brian L. Mizer, Lawrence
U.S. Defense Department, office of general counsel; U.S. Navy Judge General’s Corps; U.S. Air Force Legal Operations Agency; Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Virginia. He served as one of the attorneys who was appointed to defend Salim Hamdan, a former driver of Osama bin Laden, when he faced charges before a Guantanamo military commission. Mizer also was one of the lawyers assigned to defend Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was charged in the attack on the U.S.S Cole. A Navy captain, Mizer was one of nine judges on the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals before retiring. His family is from Kansas, including his wife, who was captain of the University of Kansas tennis team.
Snippets from interview
Asked if the fact that he’s been a resident of Kansas for two years and has not practiced law in the state put him at a disadvantage: “I don’t think that it does put me at a disadvantage. I think I’ve been training for this experience, frankly, for my entire life. I was born into a military hospital in the United Kingdom, and my father is a retired Air Force master sergeant so I followed him on every assignment for his career, and I began my own career. What that means is every two to three years we were moving to Texas, to Portugal, to somewhere else, walking into new schools, walking into new environments and having to make friends. I continued that trajectory into the Navy where I was walking into a new country, a new legal office, new paralegals throughout my career. I culminated that as a captain in the United States Navy where you were not only walking into a new legal office, having to earn the respect and, ultimately, hopefully, the friendship of colleagues, but were expected to lead those individuals. I’ve been a leader within the Navy. I’ve been a leader on the Navy court, and I believe that I am prepared to be a leader of the Kansas bar as well.”
Asked about how hard it was for him to defend someone before a Guantanamo military commission? “Those cases are difficult. You mentioned the Nashiri case. It was difficult to be involved in the case, which involved the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. Difficult as a sailor. But lawyers are charged with defending difficult cases. There always need to be lawyers to defend difficult cases. I tried during that representation to keep in mind John Adams, who defended the red coats, including Capt. Preston, who participated in the Boston Massacre. It’s something that I don’t know that anyone asks to do, but I did it when the (judge advocate general) asked me to do it. If there’s any bright spot about Guantanamo it is that we as a country made a determination that those individuals were going to have to be tried in a court of law in accordance with the rule of law.”
Asked about his philosophy for interpreting the constitution: “I believe the goal of an appellate court is to achieve justice. I don’t believe in abandoning or not utilizing any tool that is available. Reading Justice Breyer’s book on ‘Reading the Constitution,’ I believe I that I hold a similar view that text is important but purpose and legislative intent are also important tools that can be used. I have found in the uniform code of military justice the legislative history of that statute to be of tremendous value in trying to make arguments to appellate courts and then ultimately as a judge. That pragmatic view that I take to attempting to reach justice is what I would bring to the Kansas Supreme Court.”
