This separation of powers business can be tricky. Governors attempt to influence legislators by pressing their agendas publicly. Legislators, in turn, can override gubernatorial vetoes with the correct number of votes. Courts define appropriate roles for both governors and lawmakers.

It's all part and parcel of the Founding Fathers' intent. Constitutionally codified checks and balances, although modified on occasion, remain woven prominently in the fabric of this democratic republic.

And then we discover the law of unintended consequences brought about by a simple error in the process. It turns out a bill written during the last session of the Kansas Legislature inadvertently removed some money from the judicial branch. A lot of money, actually. Senators apparently assumed the $11 million they cut was being made up via other legislation that increased docket fee surcharges. They were not. The net result is an unexpected $8 million shortfall.

"We've already taken draconian measures" to cover the shortfall, said Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Davis.

On Friday, Davis announced state courts would begin shutting down for one week each month beginning in February. Proceedings that are time-sensitive would not be affected, but all non-deadline actions would be put on hold while staff members are furloughed. Judges themselves would still be paid, since their salaries are constitutionally mandated.

Davis believes the closures will be necessary unless the Legislature comes up with the $8 million right away -- something House Majority Leader Mike O'Neal, R-Hutchinson, is working on.

"Because everybody agrees that was an unintended consequence," O'Neal said, "we're going to try to do everything we can to restore as much of that as we can."

It will be interesting to see how quickly this gets resolved. We credit the judicial branch for taking the responsibility to respond to the state's financial state, even when it's obvious their funding should not have been diminished. Other entities would take the state to court over such a matter.

That might have made for an interesting test of the balance of powers. If the judiciary were to sue the Legislature, would the governor be appointed to decide the case?

Editorial by Patrick Lowry

plowry@dailynews.net