Washington, DC— Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked Kansas 20th in the nation and issued the state's program a C-Minus grade. To shine a light on the typically secretive and toothless systems that often fail to remove abusive and incompetent judges from the bench, legal consumer watchdog group HALT, Inc. released its 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card, analyzing programs in all 50 states, D.C. and the federal circuits.

"Kansas' system of judicial oversight is far too insular," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder. HALT's study found that ordinary citizens are outnumbered by judges and lawyers on the panel that decides ethics complaints against judges. Six active or retired judges, four attorneys and only four laypersons serve on the Kansas' Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

"The public finds it difficult to believe that a judicial discipline system controlled by judges can be fairly serving the public," stated Blonder, pointing to a recent case in which the Commission merely recommended censuring Sedgwick County District Judge Rebecca Pilshaw, despite three separate incidents of serious misconduct. Most recently, Sedgwick had lost her temper with potential jurors during a murder trial and threatened, "Anyone else want to mess with me?" Previously, she inappropriately met with a witness out of court and followed improper procedures in hearing a defendant's motion.

Moreover, while state law requires Kansas judges to annually file reports disclosing their financial interests, the filings do not include critical information, such as the economic interest of the judge's spouse. In addition, the reports are not available online, making it difficult for interested citizens to view them.

Kansas rules also fail to place meaningful limitations on the reimbursement and compensation that judges may accept in connection with corporate and special interest funded trips. "Kansas' laws unfortunately include massive loopholes that still allow members of the judiciary to be wined and dined on the corporate dime," noted Blonder.

None of the top five states-Washington, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Arizona and California-scored higher than a B average on HALT's Report Card. More than half of the states received grades in the C range and HALT issued D's to 14 jurisdictions. Two states-Maine and Mississippi-flunked outright.

"At a time when the American public has lost faith in the impartiality and fairness of the nation's judiciary, it's critical that we have an effective system of oversight for judges," stated Blonder.