(Updated to reflect comments from Pyle and Hensley with statement from Jeffry Jack)
A key lawmaker said Tuesday he plans to ask for an investigation into whether Judge Jeffry Jack violated judicial canons when he criticized conservative politicians with tweets sometimes laced with profanity.
Sen. Rick Wilborn, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, prepared a one-page letter asking the Commission on Judicial Conduct to examine whether Jack’s tweets violated two judicial canons requiring judges to remain impartial. Wilborn signed the letter and invited other senators to sign as well.
“I believe Judge Jack’s actions and public social media statements impugn the dignity of his office and call into question his ability to serve as a judge in our Kansas court system,” Wilborn said in the letter.
Wilborn announced that he was asking for a review of the Labette County district judge’s tweets after the Senate rejected his nomination to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
Gov. Laura Kelly appointed Jack but later pulled the nomination after the tweets emerged. The Senate, however, had to vote down the appointment before she could make a new nomination.
The governor moved ahead with a new nominee – Lawrence attorney Sarah Warner – after the Senate rejected Jack’s nomination 38-0.
Jack, meanwhile, showed no sign of backing down in a statement he emailed to reporters.
“I will continue to do my job and apply the law to the facts without personal bias or partisan advantage,” Jack said.
In his letter, Wilborn questions whether Jack violated rule 1.2 in Judicial Canon 1: “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
He also asks whether Jack violated rule 3.1 from Judicial Canon 3 that says a judge shall not “participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality; or demean the judicial office…”
Jamila Jefferson-Jones, who teaches professional responsibility at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School, told the Sunflower State Journal earlier this year that she thought Jack’s tweets opened him up to discipline but short of losing his place on the bench.
She noted that many judges tend to shy away from social media. If they do engage on Facebook, Twitter or the like, they limit their postings to family events or official proceedings, she said.
Jack’s tweets, she said, left him exposed.
“It is very clear what his political leanings and stances are based on his tweets,” Jefferson-Jones said in an earlier interview.
“The question is: What would a reasonable person glean from his tweets? A reasonable person might glean that he is not impartial.”
Even the governor acknowledged that the judge’s tweets were out of bounds when she withdrew her support of Jack.
“I’m surprised and disappointed that a sitting judge would engage in this type of rhetoric,” Kelly said back in March.
“It’s unacceptable for a sitting judge, who must be seen as unbiased and impartial, to post personal political views on social media.”
Republican state Senator Dennis Pyle had introduced a resolution with 14 sponsors calling for his resignation from the bench.
“Judge Jack is not qualified. He is not qualified to sit on any bench in my opinion,” Pyle said on the Senate floor Tuesday.
“I think the Supreme Court should be dealing with him abruptly and quickly to take care of this situation.”
Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley said he thought Jack was a “very well qualified” jurist. He said he would just prefer to see the Legislature move beyond the Jack nomination.
“I would much rather see us just move on and not worry about what Jeff Jack has done,” Hensley said.
“It goes to show that you probably shouldn’t go on Twitter or Facebook,” Hensley said. “If anything, it showed poor judgment on his part to engage in that kind of discourse when you’re a judge.”
The Commission on Judicial Conduct is charged with deciding whether a judge has violated the state’s judicial conduct code.
The commission can rule there was no violation, leading to a letter dismissing the case or a letter of informal advice to the judge.
The commission may also find that there was a violation, leading to a letter of caution, a cease-and-desist order or a notice of formal proceeding.
After a formal proceeding, the commission can admonish a judge, issue a cease-and-desist order or recommend that the state Supreme Court take disciplinary action.
In 2017, the most recent year for which statistics were available, the commission received 236 complaints.
Only 25 of those complaints were ultimately investigated, and 10 of those were eventually dismissed.
Only one case was referred to the Supreme Court, and in six cases cease-and-desist orders were issued.
By comparison, 22 cases were investigated in 2016, 65 were investigated in 2015 and 23 were investigated in 2014.
