The panel screening candidates for the Kansas Supreme Court spent about six hours on Monday interviewing 10 of the 15 candidates seeking to fill a vacancy on the Kansas Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the panel is scheduled to interview five more candidates before picking three names to recommend to Gov. Laura Kelly to appoint.
The panel’s questions generally covered the same ground related to judicial philosophy and temperament while giving candidates the chance to explain how they stood out from others in the field. In many cases, they were asked about their administrative skills.
On a limited occasion the conversation veered into the prospect of electing justices if voters next year pass a constitutional amendment eliminating the screening process.
Here are brief overviews of the 30-miniute interviews done Monday with 10 of the candidates.
Carl Folsom III, Lawrence
Douglas County district judge
Before joining the bench, Folsom served as a trial attorney with the Office of the Federal Public Defender. Folsom initially joined the Federal Public Defender system in 2012, first working as a research-and-writing specialist and then as an assistant federal public defender for the Northern and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma.
Snippets from interview:
He was asked how many times his name appeared on a brief in the Kansas appellate courts: Folsom wasn’t sure but said he’s been involved in about 200 federal and state appellate cases where he was the lead attorney. He said he’s argued 21 times before the Kansas Supreme Court, 46 times before the Kansas Court of Appeals and 11 times before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Asked what sets him apart from other candidates: He cited his work as a trial judge, his defense work and his appellate legal work. “I don’t think you’ll find another judge that has handled 200 appeals.” He noted that he sat on a panel with the Kansas Court of Appeals. “I do think it would be valuable to have someone with public defense experience, significant public defense experience, on the court. I think it’s valuable to have a district court judge, someone with district court judicial experience on the court.” He said his background serves as a reminder that “every Kansan deserves justice no matter who they are and where they came from.”
He was asked if he thought the law was static: “The law is not static. The idea of stare decisis is that there should be predictability and consistency. If you’re talking about horizontal stare decisis where a court honors its past holdings, I think that’s important so that parties, organizations, people can rely on those decisions in conforming their conduct to the decisions. But the Supreme Court said it shouldn’t be a rigid inevitability, something like Plessy v. Ferguson – everyone knows that it was wrong the moment it came out but it took almost 60 years to overturn it. There should not be a rigid inevitability. A court should be free to look at its past decisions, but it should do so in a careful way because businesses, people rely on your rulings to conform their conduct. You shouldn’t do it just because there’s a new judge on the Supreme Court.”
Amy Hanley, Lawrence
Douglas County district judge
Has been a district judge in Douglas County since 2016. Previously served as the program director and instructor at the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. She also served on the board of trustees for that group, which provides trial advocacy training to attorneys. She also worked as an assistant attorney general and criminal prosecution section lead for about seven years with the attorney general’s office. She also worked as the first assistant Saline County attorney for almost seven years.
Snippets from interview:
Asked about the role legal precedent would make in decision making: “I believe strongly in precedent. I believe in the rule of law. I believe that precedent guides our decision and that judges should follow the law. I look at my judicial philosophy as one of pragmatism. I am the type of judge who wants to consider the practical implications of the decisions that I make because the system works better. We don’t want the system to not work well. Precedent factors into that because it’s a guiding principle of the law for lawyers to adhere to and for courts.”
Asked about concurring and dissenting opinions: Hanley said concurring and dissenting opinions are helpful because they provide more depth into what the Supreme Court considered in arriving at its decision. “That said, I would hope to be a collaborator on the court and build consensus and one that would be able to see the points of agreement,” she said. “That’s the approach I would prefer.”
Asked about the biggest challenge facing courts in the next five years: “I think the public image of the court is the biggest challenge, not because of anything specific to this individual court, but courts and judges in general. I believe that will probably span more than the next five years. Public perception is something that I believe is best addressed through education. Our current court had made great strides in educating the public and being out in the public eye. I would hope to help continue that.”
Christopher Jayaram, Lenexa
Johnson County district judge
Gov. Laura Kelly named Jayaram as a district judge in Johnson County in 2021. Jayaram – a 1997 graduate of the Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon – had been an attorney at Horn Aylward & Bandy in Kansas City, Missouri. He specialized in business and commercial litigation, health care law, product liability litigation and trucking litigation.
Snippets from interview:
Asked to recall a time when he took a position that wasn’t popular with other lawyers and the community: “There are always going to be opinions that are not particularly popular. My job as a district court judge is really to not pay attention to what’s popular or not popular. I’ve got a set of facts in front of me and I decide what the law is after reviewing what the Supreme Court or various courts of appeals say and simply apply the law to those facts. The outcome is what I deem to be the right answer for those particular set of facts setting aside popularity or whether that’s going to be well received by members of the bar or not.”
Asked for his philosophy about interpreting the constitution: “Generally speaking, I think my philosophy in terms of interpreting documents, whether they’re statutes or whether it’s the constitution, it is important to maintain consistency. Stare decisis means something. I think that’s important for a judge on the Supreme Court. There needs to be some pragmatic review of issues as they come up. Generally speaking, I think that you need to review the text from a pragmatic standpoint while still giving fidelity to the actual words that are in the constitution. It’s hard in a vacuum to talk about that. My philosophy just as a judge generally would be to try to be pragmatic in terms of solutions and outcomes depending on the facts and circumstances and depending on what you’re interpreting.”
Asked if he was ready to become more of a “political animal” if the state starts electing Supreme Court justices: “That’s a great question. I guess what I would say is I am not a political animal. I don’t know that I will ever be a political animal. If that were to come to pass, I think at that juncture I would be prepared to move forward with seeking retention under an elected system. I don’t think that is going to change who I am as a person or how I would run a campaign. It’s not something I relish. It’s not something I think is susceptible to bringing in the best and the brightest to be a judge. I think there are inherent risks. But if that’s what ends up happening, then I will be prepared to move forward in a way that I can best do it.”
Asked what sets him apart from other candidates: He cited his experience as a trial judge, calling it “critically important.” He said his judicial experience coupled with his diverse legal background in private practice that included medical malpractice work, product liability work and class-action litigation, would make him an asset to the Supreme Court. He said that background gives experience in dealing with many issues that could come before the court.
Laura Ellen Johnson-McNish, Troy/Marysville
District judge since 2023 in the 22nd Judicial District, which covers Doniphan, Brown, Nemaha and Marshall counties.
She served as a district magistrate judge from 2019 to 2023. She also served as Marshall County attorney from 2010 to 2019. Also worked as an attorney, deputy director and appraisal supervisor for the property valuation division at the Kansas Department of Revenue. She also was an attorney for the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals.
Snippets from interview
Judicial philosophy and is there a role for finding creative solutions in the law when making decisions: “In the area of family law, sometimes I look for creative solutions because every family is different. So, I try to really observe and listen to them and hear their problems and allow them input as much as I can on how do we make this better. That’s more of a creative process working with other people and then seeking out resources in the community to help them. When it comes to writing on a statewide basis, you leave the creative thinking to the practitioners in my view. What we need to be is steadfast, reliable, predictable and then let the practitioners do their job because they’re going to do it well and it’s going to save our time for the big issues. At the statewide level, I would view creativity as something to be very cautious about.”
Asked what separates her from other candidates: “I not only have a juris doctor, I have a CPA. I understand words and numbers.” She stressed that her accounting background gives her an ability to sort through complex financial cases. “I have the ability to understand the expert witnesses and the point the attorneys are making about all the financial information, testimony and exhibits. I don’t substitute my judgment for any expert, but I do understand what they’re saying and the points the attorneys are making about it. In addition, I have Kansas urban experience and Kansas rural experience. I think that would serve me well on the Kansas Supreme Court. I have experience that is extensive in serving the state of Kansas in the world of taxation, serving my district and local government as a county attorney and district judge and I think that knowledge would translate well into a Kansas Supreme Court justice.”
Randall Hodgkinson, Topeka
Visiting assistant professor of law at Washburn University Law School.
He is currently appointed in a joint partnership between the Washburn University School of Law and the Kansas Appellate Defender Office teaching criminal appellate advocacy, where law students work, under his supervision, on felony appeals assigned to the Kansas Appellate Defender Office. Before taking his current job, he served as an adjunct professor with the trial advocacy course at Washburn Law.
Snippets from interview
Asked about he would interpret the constitution: “At the base, I don’t know how you can get away from some level of textualism, that the words to the extent that they have meaning have to be given meaning. You have to look at the meaning of those words in the context that they were written and as much as possible to give meaning to those words. Sometimes you can’t just base on that. You have to look at other interpretative languages sometimes to do that.”
Asked if his approach to the Kansas Constitution would be different from his approach to the federal Constitution: “The interpretative lens is slightly different. For me, I think you look at the text in the context in which it was written. So, the text of the Kansas Constitution was written at a different time and in a different place than the text of the federal Constitution. So yes, there could be differences depending on the particular provision that we’re talking about. When you look at the context of how things are written as an interpretive lens, then you have to look at when it was written and the differences.”
Asked about working under intense scrutiny as a Supreme Court justice: “It’s part of being a judge at any point on any level. You’re taking on a different role. You’re taking on the role of a public officer. And every person that takes on that role in the state of Kansas understands that’s a part of the deal. I’m comfortable with that. I’m comfortable with standing up and saying, ‘Here are the decisions that I made and the reasons that I made them.’ I’ve not been particularly good at hiding things any way.”
Cheryl A. Rios, Topeka
Shawnee County district court judge
A former nurse, Rios was appointed to the district court bench in Shawnee County in 2008. She previously served as an associate judge for the Topeka Municipal Court. After practicing critical care nursing for six years, the judge served as a staff attorney for the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and as an adjunct professor at Washburn University. Rios is a former prosecutor for the Shawnee County district attorney’s office.
Asked about her philosophical approach to interpreting the constitution: “I swore an oath to abide by the Kansas Constitution and the United States Constitution, and I will follow the constitution. It’s the law of the land. People live their lives by those sets of rules. Clearly, there are times when changes have been made…by the citizenry who have decided that amendments should be included in the constitutions. I believe in a strict reading of the constitution. If you’re asking me how I would apply other laws and case precedent, I would certainly abide by case precedent.”
Asked if her approach to the Kansas Constitution would be any different than her approach to the federal constitution: “No. The United States Constitution is the law of the land. It’s overarching the Kansas Constitution. I have would to abide by both.”
Asked what separates her from other candidates: “Nearly 17 years as a trial judge is significant. Having served in the trenches, having been a front-line judicial worker, I understand not only what it takes to make a good record for appeal – and I know what the appellate courts are looking for – I also understand what it takes to process cases at a district-court level and, of course, the Supreme Court is responsible for the administration of all courts in the state. Knowing some of those intricate things that happen around a courthouse are important in order to relay that to the court.” She also cited her work as a staff attorney for the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, saying it helped her better understand the needs of the less affluent, including access to the court system.
Asked about the single most important trait for a Supreme Court justice: “I would say they need to have integrity. I think I have integrity. I think I would be able to do the right thing even when it’s hard.”
Brant Laue, Topeka
Served as the state’s solicitor general under former Attorney General Derek Schmidt. He also served as legal counsel to former Republican Govs. Sam Brownback and Jeff Colyer. Laue previously served as special assistant to the assistant attorney general in the civil division of the U.S. Department of Justice and is a former law clerk to Judge Roger L. Wollman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.
Asked how he would filter out politics as a justice: “I often told the young lawyers that I worked with that the intersection of law and politics is a very dangerous place. Many people are run down at that intersection. Politics and politicians are concerned primarily about results. They want to win the election. They want to win the issue. They want to get the bill passed. In my view, judges and the judiciary are primarily interested in – not the end result, not who wins the case – but how you get there. What is the reasoning? In my view, politics really has no place in the law. The role of a judge is to be conscious perhaps of his own proclivities on an issue and set them aside and rule based on what’s in the record and what are the legal arguments made by the parties.”
Asked about his philosophical approach to interpreting the constitution: “Judges don’t make the law, they interpret. It’s strikes me that it’s important to start with the words of the constitution and then look at how it’s been interpreted before. I think it’s important…to distill out your own personal substantive feelings about an issue and keep your blinders on the law.”
Improved relationships between branches of government: Laue talked briefly about fostering good relations between different branches of government if he were to become a justice. He reflected on poor relations with the courts in the past. “Having worked in the executive branch – of course, that required me to work a fair amount with the Legislature – I saw some of the least fortunate aspects of that – threats to cut judicial funding because of an outcome in a case, things of that nature. I think there is, perhaps, more that can be done. People of good will and civility should be able to sit down, come together and talk these things through. At least the two governors that I represented got invitations from the chief justice to come to lunch. One of them accepted, one of them didn’t. If I had been the chief counsel at the time, I would have told the first one that he should have accepted. If you know people better, you’re less likely to characterize them, vilify them.”
Kathleen M. Lynch, Kansas City
Wyandotte County district judge
In 2006, Lynch was elected judge in the 29th Judicial District in Wyandotte County. She was a research attorney for Court of Appeals Judge J. Patrick Brazil from 1992 to 1994. She then was a prosecutor focusing on domestic violence cases in Kansas City, Kansas, Municipal Court from 1994 to 1995.
Addressed the merit selection process compared to voting for judges: Lynch veered a little bit away from a direct question she was asked when she compared voting for judges in Wyandotte County to using a screening process to vet judges in other counties – known as merit selection. “At least in Wyandotte County when you are choosing a district court judge, all of the politics is right out front. You know who gave me money. If you walk in my courtroom and you’re uncomfortable because counsel gave me $50 or $25…you can tell me that and I can recuse myself from the case. In merit selection of district court judges, you don’t have any information about what politicking went on to put that judge on the bench. I think merit selection of the appellate courts is absolutely imperative. On the district bench, one decision by a court judge is probably not going to set public policy in the state of Kansas. But if you are an insurance company or a company that’s going to have environmental issues or a special interest group, all of that could influence and they could buy themselves an appellate court judge.”
Asked about temperament: “I have much better judicial temperament than when I first started. I have always said that your first day on the bench is not going to be your best day on the bench. Your best day on the bench is going to be your last day on the bench because you have all of that experience. I believe I have an appropriate judicial temperament. I believe that I treat everybody with fairness. I will admit that I’m impatient. I do not like when lawyers are late or unprepared.”
Asked about how she would interpret the constitution: “I am one of those people that believes that the constitution – the United States Constitution and the Kansas Constitution – is a living, breathing document and that it should be applied accordingly in the days that we are living in. If not, then we can go back to muskets and the Second Amendment could apply there, too.”
Kristen Wheeler, Wichita
Chair of the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals.
She’s been in that position since 2021. She previously worked as a law clerk to U.S. District Judge Thomas Marten. She has worked with the Robinson Law Firm in Wichita, focusing on business advising and litigation, real estate advising and litigation, small-business representation, intellectual property protection, consumer protection, foreclosure defense, contracts, and environmental law
Interview snippets
Asked for her philosophy about interpreting the constitution: “I don’t think I have a set philosophy at this point in my career. I have thought about that question in-depth. My fear of calling myself out as one thing versus another is that I unwittingly pigeonhole myself into a situation where I may say that I am perhaps a strict originalist and then I am presented with a set of facts where that interpretation just doesn’t make sense. What do I do? Does that make me seem dishonest if I claim to have this particular philosophy? I think that I am someone who just looks at the facts and the law of each case and makes the best decision that I can is not preconstrained by any particular rubric.”
Asked what separates her from other candidates: “Over the course of my career, I’ve always done things a little bit differently. From the time I went to undergrad, I didn’t have a poly sci major, a psychology major, an English degree, a journalism degree. I studied evolutionary biology. At the outset, that science background started me off with an analytical perspective on everything and it worked really well then when I got into legal work to have already my brain tuned that way to be analytical.” She noted that at a time in her life when other lawyers were hitting their career strides, she pivoted and took a job as a clerk with a federal judge who was planning to retire soon. “That decision, I think, to a lot of people probably made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Had I not done that, had I not taken that chance and done something a little risky and unusual, I don’t think I would be sitting here today.”
Anthony F. Rupp, Olathe
Former partner-in-charge of the Kansas City office of the Foulston Siefkin law firm, the largest Kansas-based law firm. A member of the firm’s litigation and employment practice group, Rupp represents large and small businesses, colleges, universities and municipalities.
Interview snippets
Asked for his philosophy about interpreting the constitution: “There are recognized standards for constitutional interpretation that have been used by the appellate courts for years and years. I am not an originalist who puts the original interpretation above everything else. I am a person who believes that the whole gamut of recognized standards for construction of constitutional issues have been established over many years and it takes into account precedent, takes into account the words of the statute.”
Asked what sets him apart from other candidates: “I think what I bring to the table is experience, both from the litigation perspective, including appellate, (and) management perspective. I am well known for preparation and, I think, being prepared is critical to the role of a Supreme Court justice. I think am well known for collaboration and everything I do is in collaboration with others. I am usually the lead attorney on a matter and will have several attorneys and paralegals working with me on those cases. Typically, I try to work well in those cases with my opposing counsel. Sometimes that’s impossible, but almost all the time, I work well with opposing counsel. With regard to decisions the Supreme Court will make, there are going to be differences of opinion. I think you can disagree without being disagreeable. I would hope to collaborate with the other justices and their offices on trying to find the right results.”
On his age: “Probably the elephant in the room with me is my age. I’m 67 years old. It’s kind of the question, ‘How long does this guy want to do this? Is this something that he wants to do?’ And the answer is, ‘yes.’ I would take it seriously. I would be well prepared and I would work well with the district courts and the court of appeals. I think that’s part of the collaborative nature that I would hope to bring to the court.”
