(Updated to reflect debate on judicial selection amendment)
Gov. Laura Kelly on Thursday named a private attorney who is regarded as a champion of the rights of workers, consumers, and survivors of forced labor and sexual abuse to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Kelly named Larkin Walsh of Leawood to replace Justice Evelyn Wilson, who is stepping down from the court after she was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease.
Kelly chose Walsh over two sitting district court judges, Amy Hanley of Lawrence and Christopher Jayaram of Lenexa.
Walsh emerged from a field of 15 candidates who went before the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, which recommended three to the governor.
“Larkin’s extensive legal experience and her background of service makes her an excellent addition to the Kansas Supreme Court,” Kelly said in a statement.
“Her deep understanding of appellate courts, combined with her breadth of experience in civil practice, gives her a unique and invaluable perspective,” the governor said.
“Throughout her career, Larkin has been dedicated to upholding the law and beyond this, she has served the legal community and public through many leadership positions and volunteer roles.
“I’m confident that her legal skills and work ethic make her immensely qualified to serve as the next Kansas Supreme Court justice.”
Walsh is currently senior counsel at the Kansas City firm Stueve Siegel Hanson, where according to the firm’s website she was regarded as a champion “of the rights of workers, consumers, and survivors of forced labor, trafficking, and sexual abuse.”
Walsh was on a team that led a group of cases against the U.S. Olympic Committee and its national governing bodies – including USA Taekwondo and USA Diving – involving federal claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
In the federal case against USA Taekwondo, Walsh and her team clarified the law on the statute of limitations and the venture theory of liability against institutional defendants who benefit from forced labor and services, according to the firm’s website.
Larkin also pursued claims in courts across the country on behalf of property owners who were subject to a sham “administrative fee” and successfully resolved their individual clients’ claims as part of a larger class resolution.
She also assisted in a class action to protect veterans whose cars were unlawfully repossessed by a major national bank.
Walsh 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.
She earned a bachelor’s from South Methodist University and a law degree from the University of Kansas.
“I am deeply honored by the governor’s trust, humbled by her confidence, and grateful for the opportunity to serve the people of Kansas as a member of our state’s highest court,” Walsh said in a statement.
“I have a profound respect for the institution of the judiciary, its role in our three-part system of government, and the responsibility of a Justice to protect the foundational principles set forth in our state and federal constitutions.”
During her interview with the nominating commission, Walsh said she didn’t have any particular view about how to interpret the Constitution.
“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,” Walsh told the nominating commission.
“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.”
She also was asked if there was any room 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,” she told the nominating committee.
“If you looked at my resume, my background is in the arts,” she said.
“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.”
In explaining her qualifications for the position, 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,” she said.
“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.”
The three finalists for the position on the court were picked by the Supreme Court nominating commission, which includes five lawyers elected by their peers and four nonlawyers picked by the governor. Here’s who’s on the commission.
When the commission voted, Hanley, Jayaram and Walsh led the first three rounds of balloting until the fourth round, when Jayaram was locked in a tie with Johnson County District Judge Robert Wonnell for the third and final name to be recommended to the governor.
Jayaram edged Wonnell 5-4 in the tie-breaking vote.
Overall, Hanley amassed 33 votes over four rounds of voting compared to 32 for Walsh and 27 for Jayaram (not counting his fifth round tie-breaker).
The governor’s decision could potentially be the last one where a nominating screening committee is employed to select Supreme Court justices.
Next August, Kansas voters will decide whether to elect justices to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Americans for Prosperity used the occasion of the governor’s appointment to make the case for electing Supreme Court justices.
“Gov. Kelly’s appointment of yet another liberal progressive to the Kansas Supreme Court will be her last,” AFP state director Elizabeth Patton said in a statement.
“Kansans can no longer tolerate this cabal of unelected progressive attorneys keeping themselves in control of the judicial branch.”
Kelly defended the current system in announcing her appointment to the court.
“Our state’s process for nominating Kansas Supreme Court justices produces highly qualified nominees and incorporates voices from across the state.
“This year in particular, produced three extremely qualified nominees, and I am grateful for the service to Kansas each of them exemplifies.”
