HB 2825 is a short bill about a serious topic: The right of the people to open court proceedings. In the case of RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. VIRGINIA, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), the United States Supreme Court expressed the high stakes associated with this issue. The following quotes from the majority and concurring opinions in that case are illustrative of the gravity that attaches to this matter.
According to Chief Justice Burger:
“The Bill of Rights was enacted against the backdrop of the long history of trials being presumptively open. Public access to trials was then regarded as an important aspect of the process itself; the conduct of trials "before as many of the people as chuse (SIC) to attend" was regarded as one of "the inestimable advantages of a free English constitution of government." 1 Journals 106, 107. In guaranteeing freedoms such as those of speech and press, the First Amendment can be read as protecting the right of everyone to attend trials so as to give meaning to those explicit guarantees.”
According to Justice Brennan:
“Tradition, contemporaneous state practice, and this Court's own decisions manifest a common understanding that "[a] trial is a public event. What transpires in the court room is public property." Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947). As a matter of law and virtually immemorial custom, public trials have been the essentially unwavering rule in ancestral England and in our own Nation. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S., at 266 -268; Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S., at 386 , n. 15; id., at 418-432, and n. 11 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring and dissenting). 18 Such abiding adherence to the principle of open trials "reflect[s] a profound judgment about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered." Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155 (1968).”
In recent months I have been troubled by the fact that the Kansas Supreme Court has been conducting at least two important judicial proceedings in complete secrecy. (Planned Parenthood v. Kline & State of Kansas, EX REL., Paul Morrison v. The Honorable Richard Anderson, Judge of the Third Judicial District). For the very reasons cited by Justices Burger and Brennan I believe that the public has a fundamental interest in all cases that are submitted to a court for resolution, and that restricting media coverage and other public access to court proceedings should only be allowed under very rare circumstances.
Under HB 2825, a court could not close a hearing or allow pleadings to be filed under seal unless it first made a finding on the record that an identified safety, property or privacy interest predominates the case and outweighs the strong public interest in access to the court record and proceedings. It is an unfortunate reality that many of the most important public policy issues facing our State are being decided by courts. As such it is more important than ever that out judicial process be open and accessible.
