Letters to the editor: Let citizens vote on judges; Animal ordinance makes sense
Let citizens vote on judges
To the editor:
I for one oppose the appointment system for judges in our district.
District 1 is comprised of Atchison and Leavenworth counties, which contain more than 91,000 people. I think having nine people picking a judge for 91,000 is not representing the citizens properly.
I have no doubt that these nine people are good and honest, but like anyone else we all have our points of views and biases. It is not reasonable to believe these people are non-partisan. As I have stated, we all have our points of views on issues and so do they.
The governor chooses from no more than three nominees. The governor is the most powerful politician in the state and I believe as chief executive of the state, the governor should not be involved with the choice of a judge. I believe in separation of powers.
The retention rate for judges is 98.9 percent. Even though this is a four-year term, this tells me that a judge, in effect, has a lifetime appointment.
I would prefer my fellow citizens vote rather than a nine-member committee picking a judge.
Animal ordinance makes sense
To the editor:
Kudos to the Topeka City Council for their recent approval of a new animal ordinance. They've done away with appearance-based breed specific legislation, instead focusing on regulating owners who allow their dangerous dogs of any appearance to threaten other citizens. They've put restrictions on tethering, which is known to make dogs potentially dangerous. They've also recognized that the only effective, efficient and humane way to deal with feral cats is to allow humane organizations to trap, sterilize, vaccinate, identify and return them to the areas where they live. While some say the new ordinance is ground-breaking and progressive, it's really just common sense.
Crystal Swann Blackdeer
Leavenworth County Humane Society, Inc.