Marla Luckert
Non-Partisan | Kansas
Candidate Profile*
Proven Activist
*Additional information appears below for educational purposes; however, only data received prior to the candidate deadline was considered during Panel Evaluation.
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Marla Luckert
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2022
Election
General
Race
Supreme Court (retention)
Incumbent
Yes
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
ENDORSEMENTS*
*These endorsements were received after the deadline and were not considered in the Panel Evaluations and are for additional educational purposes only.
CONSERVATIVE (1)
*Judge Voter Guide
OTHER INFORMATION
Chief Justice Luckert has served on the Kansas Supreme Court since 2002, when she was appointed by Governor Bill Graves (R). Before that, she served as a judge on the Third Judicial District Court from 1992 to 2003.
Notable Cases:
- Hodes & Nauser, MDs, P.A. v. Schmidt (2019): Signed per curiam majority opinion. Held that Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights, which adapts the DoI's "all men are created equal...pursuit of happiness" has substantive meaning and includes a fundamental right to bodily autonomy, which permits abortion (7). Held that the government may not restrict abortion unless it is furthering a compelling interest in a way narrowly tailored to that interest (7). Affirmed a temporary injunction against a bill which would violate those principles by limiting abortion access (7). Inquiry began because trial court held that the KS Const protected a right to abortion (14). Held that Sections 1 and 2 have much the same effect as the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (14). The Court previously held that it was not necessary to find abortion rights under the KS Const (15). Noted that Farley precedent recognized Section 1 protected rights broader than the 14th Amendment (16). "Our analysis leads us to the conclusion that section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights acknowledges rights that are distinct from and broader than the United States Constitution and that our framers intended these rights to be judicially protected against governmental action that does not meet constitutional standards. Among the rights is the right of personal autonomy. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy. Although the Doctors, the lower courts here, and various decisions from this court have tended to lump sections 1 and 2 together, we base our decision on section 1 alone because we find it sufficiently protects the rights at stake" (19). Held that Section 1's exclusion of "without due process of law" places an emphasis on substantive rather than procedural rights (22). Held that drafters of the KS Const did not intend to exhaustively list all rights in Section 1 (25). Held that cases from other states showed that natural rights sections were not aspirational or hortatory (28-29). Held that Section 1 could be judicially enforced because the KS Const framers intended it to be (36). Held that Locke and others recognized a property in one's own person (38-39). Held that the Supreme Court and other courts have found a right to personal autonomy/bodily integrity (40-42). Held that to deny a woman a decision in continuing a pregnancy would violate her right to personal autonomy (46). Held that KS Const's drafters proclamation of natural rights applied to women and that this included the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy (50). Held that "rather than rely on historical prejudices in our analysis, we look to natural rights and apply them equally to protect all individuals" (61). Held that strict scrutiny was proper in this case (65). Held that, "perhaps most importantly" strict scrutiny was proper because it was the court's duty to protect the intent of the KS constitutional convention and the inalienable rights of Kansans (72). Held that the undue burden standard was not sufficient because the KS Const offered greater protections than the US Const (74). Held that the presumption of constitutionality was not proper in cases involving 'suspect classifications' or 'fundamental interests' (77).
In the Matter of the Parentage of M.F. (2020): Signed Justice Beier's majority opinion. Held that an unmarried same-sex partner of a woman who gave birth through artificial insemination could be recognized as a legal parent through K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-2208(a)(4) when the birth mother had verbally consented to shared parenting at the time of the child's birth (3). Strictly read, the Kansas Parentage Act provided that a man could be recognized as the parent of a child born from artificial insemination if he and his wife had a written consent document (19). However, the Court said that the Kansas Courts of Appeals had long found that K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-2205 (the artificial insemination act) confers parental rights and duties on 1) unmarried men seeking to avoid paternity responsibilities and 2) married men with merely a verbal agreement, as such, it could create "complementary fictions" that the man was the biological father and the sperm donor was not (20). Cited that Kansas Parentage Act's (KPA) provisions to determine a paternal relationship are the same as those to determine a maternal relationship and that another law allowed "any 'interested party may bring an action to determine the existence or nonexistence of a mother and child relationship'" (21). Held that Obergefell has "the potential to affect how the KPA is applied to establish a person has the legal rights and duties of a parent" (21). Relevant law for establishing parentage (22-23). Precedent of Downs v. Gilmore, with essentially the same facts as this case, held that same-sex partners had standing to sue for parental rights despite having no written co-parenting agreement (31). Cited SCoDE's ruling that Troxel is inappropriate in cases where a parental relationship is sought by one of the parties (34). Held that the lower courts applied the wrong standard in seeking evidence that K.L. (the plaintiff) engaged in "open and notorious demonstrations of parenting, and all that was required was that she recognized her maternity, not that she was an attentive mother (37). Remanded the case to be analyzed accordingly (37). Held that neither the KPA nor the precedent of Fraizer required proof of a written or oral co-parenting agreement between the parties, but that Troxel did require that birth-mother T.F. "implicitly or explicitly consented to share parenting with K.L. at the time of M.F.'s birth" (38).
Tillman v. Goodpasture (2021): Wrote dissent. Disagreed with the majority that the Arche case had created the ability to bring wrongful-birth claims (31). Argued that the couple in this case had brought "a classic medical malpractice action," and the unique facts of the case did not make the malpractice allegations into a new type of legal action (32). Criticized the majority's reasoning; the majority had said that, when Arche limited the scope of allowed damages in wrongful-birth suits, that was evidence that Arche was creating a new type of cause of action (35).
Gannon v. State (2019): Signed per curiam majority opinion. Held that the legislature's funding of its "Montoy safe harbor plan" had brought it into substantial compliance with the court's order in Gannon IV, and held that the court would retain jurisdiction to ensure continued compliance with its mandate (3). Explanation of the Montoy safe harbor (8). Adopted a "substantial evidence" standard for review (11). Held that whether the law was compliant with Article 6, § 6(b) of the Kansas Constitution is a question of law (12). Held that the state met its burden to show that virtual state aid was included in the formula (15). Court held that legislature must comply with its funding requirements from Gannon VI (21). Held that the legislature's law complied with the Court's Gannon VI mandate (23). Held that the court would retain jurisdiction because it had both the power to review and to enforce its holdings (25).
Judge Voter Guide gave 4 Stars and voted to "retain."
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Did not answer
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Did not answer
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
Did not answer
Why should the voters choose you?
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Did not answer
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
Did not answer
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
Did not answer
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
Did not answer
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Did not answer
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Did not answer
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
Did not answer
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
Did not answer
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
Did not answer
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
Did not answer
