Unlike criminal forfeiture, in which a legal action is brought as part of the crime that a person is charged with, civil forfeiture laws by and large allow assets to be seized by police upon only upon a suspicion of wrongdoing.
In recent years, stories of innocent citizens having cash and other property seized — and facing arduous, uphill battles to reclaim their property — have prompted efforts from entities as disparate as the Charles Koch Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union to modify or repeal civil forfeiture laws.
More than a half-century ago, some unpopular political maneuvering in Kansas caused voters there to create one of the nation’s more unique structures for appointing judges to a state supreme court. That change purposefully reined in the nomination powers of state elected officials, namely the governor.
Over the past few years, the legislative and executive branches have been exploring ideas to get some of that authority back.
“Kansas is the only state in the country where the selection of supreme court justices is controlled by a handful of lawyers,” Gov. Sam Brownback said in his annual State of the State address this year.
He has been among the state’s political leaders pushing for a constitutional change, one that would either alter Kansas’ merit-based selection process or get rid of it altogether. Like many states with merit-based appointment systems, Kansas uses a nominating commission to create a pool of candidates to fill open positions to the Supreme Court.