Before 1958, Kansas voters used to elect their Supreme Court justices directly. But that system was changed after an infamous “triple-play scheme” enacted by Gov. Fred Hall raised concerns for voters about corruption in the courts.
Since then, a state commission that consists of one lawyer and one non-lawyer from each congressional district evaluates judicial candidates whenever a vacancy opens up on the bench. (Kansas judges also face retention votes every few years.) The panel vets candidates on a merit-based criteria, then sends three choices for the governor to decide.
Under a constitutional amendment heading to Kansas voters in the Aug. 4 election, that merit-based system would be abolished and Kansas would return to directly electing justices to the top court.
What the Kansas Supreme Court amendment would do
The ballot measure reads as follows:
“This amendment gives the voters the right to elect the justices of the Kansas supreme court. The justices shall serve terms of six years, with the elections of justice positions 1, 2 and 3 to occur in 2028, positions 4 and 5 to occur in 2030 and positions 6 and 7 to occur in 2032, and every six years thereafter. The rules applicable for such elections and the designation of position numbers shall be provided by law. Any vacancy on the court for an unexpired term shall be filled at an election as provided by law.”
A “yes” vote would change the state’s Supreme Court judge selection process by abolishing the nominating commission and require direct elections of judges for six-year terms.
A “no” vote would continue the current selection process in which a commission vets judicial candidates and recommends finalists to the governor, who picks one person to fill a vacancy. Kansas would also keep its retention elections in which voters decide whether new judges are fit to continue serving after one year on the bench. If the majority of voters decide to retain the judge, they stay on the court for another six years, when they undergo another retention election.
What led to the Kansas Supreme Court amendment
After Kansas voters rejected an amendment to ban abortion access in the Aug. 2022 election, Kris Kobach called on Republican lawmakers to draft another ballot question that would ask whether voters want to directly elect Supreme Court judges, according to reporting by the Wichita Eagle.
Kobach’s idea was to “slowly and quietly” place anti-abortion judges on the Supreme Court to eventually overturn the court’s 2019 Hodes decision, which affirmed the right to abortion in the state constitution.
Sarah Stula, who worked as a research attorney at the Kansas Supreme Court and wrote an opinion piece for The Kansas City Star in support of the amendment, says voters shouldn’t worry about abortion access if they have proven to guarantee its access in the past.
“Why are these groups that are in favor of abortion so afraid of the public who have voted in their favor (of) having the right to vote? What I even tell folks who are pro-life is that this amendment is not a silver bullet. It still comes down to people voting their values,” she told KCUR’s Up To Date.
Micah Kubic, executive director of ACLU of Kansas, worries that influence from billionaire donors would become rampant under a system where judges must campaign for votes from the public.
“I would far prefer a Kansas Supreme Court that is fair and impartial, where the things that I believe in lose, as they often have, to one that is bought and paid for by billionaire political donors,” Kubic said.
If the amendment passes, it would be the first change to a state’s supreme court selection process since 2021.
- Zach Boblitt, Kansas Public Radio Statehouse Bureau Chief
- Micah Kubic, executive director of ACLU of Kansas and Chair for Kansas United for Impartial Courts
- Sarah Stula, attorney
