Rep. Bob Lewis was pushing hard to change how Kansas elects its state Supreme Court justices.
The current system, which uses a nine-person nominating commission, is rife with bias, doesn’t include the voices of everyday Kansans and doesn’t pick the best candidates, conservatives argue. That’s why Lewis, a Republican from Garden City, voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would allow direct elections of Supreme Court candidates.
“I therefore rise in firm and vigorous support of the proposed amendment to the Constitution,” Lewis said during the legislative session.
That was months ago, and Kansas has had a Supreme Court vacancy since. The nominating commission met again and selected three finalists. Lewis read about the most recent commission process and has seen the names of the finalists. It didn’t convince him that the system is working.
“It is heavily slanted in favor of the Democrats,” Lewis told The Beacon.
What is the current process?
The Supreme Court nominating commission has nine members — five lawyers and four nonlawyers from each congressional district.
The commission vets applicants, asks questions and votes on their top three choices. The governor then chooses the final candidate.
There were hours of public interviews broadcast on YouTube — where legislators can see every question candidates were asked — and a public vetting process so every Kansan can see who on the commission voted for which candidate.
But opponents of the system who spoke to The Beacon hold the same views as Lewis. They say lawyers hold too much power in the process, the process isn’t transparent, despite public interviews, and there’s bias toward left-leaning judges.
This could be the last time this process is used.
Legislators approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would throw out the current merit-based system and add direct elections of Supreme Court justices. But a majority of Kansas voters would need to approve this switch next year.
Lewis welcomes the change because the current finalists have flaws, he said.
Who are the Supreme Court nominees?
The nominating commission met in early June and selected three people:
- Judge Amy Hanley, a Douglas County District Court judge since 2016 and former assistant attorney general in Kansas.
- Judge K. Christopher Jayaram, a Johnson County District Court judge since 2021 who was previously a private attorney.
- Attorney Larkin Walsh, who was a clerk in the U.S. District Court and former research attorney for a Kansas Supreme Court justice.
Former Kansas Solicitor General Brant Laue wasn’t nominated. That’s a glaring omission, Lewis said.
The solicitor general is often called “the unofficial eighth Supreme Court justice because of his extensive involvement in the litigation before that court,” he said.
Not getting the vote only confirms the bias that he said exists in the system because Laue worked under Republican governors and a Republican attorney general, Lewis said. Lewis also liked Laue’s strict interpretation of the state and federal constitutions.
Laue said judges don’t write the law, they interpret it.
Hanley said she would be pragmatic in her judicial approach and that she believed strongly in judicial precedent. Jayaram said it is important to be consistent and that judges shouldn’t overlook or ignore what is in the constitution. And Walsh said a judge should consider facts impartially and objectively, but she does see a place for creativity in the judiciary.
Lewis said Laue had more direct answers on how to work with the constitution. Each candidate only had around 20-30 minutes of interviews before the next candidate was brought in.
Josh Ney, a lawyer who supports changing the process, said that’s not enough time for Kansans to get to know a possible Supreme Court justice. That’s also not enough time to ask the important questions about how any possible justice would handle the job. Ney favors elections because candidates would have to campaign and talk to voters — among other reasons.
And when it came time to critique candidates, the commission went into a closed executive session. That means Kansans don’t know what tough questions are being asked about candidates behind closed doors, he said.
“What you trade is transparency and the inability of the public to know what they’re getting,” Ney said.
The Beacon spoke with three people in favor of changing the system.
Ney didn’t comment on the quality of finalists because he’s a practicing attorney. He said any public comments now could hurt him if he ever has a case before the Supreme Court.
Lewis preferred other candidates. And Rep. Susan Humphries, a Wichita Republican, said she isn’t that familiar with the candidates but didn’t see anything surprising in their qualifications.
Democrats continue to support the process
The Beacon also talked with two Democrats who want to keep the current process. They said the nominating commission was transparent and efficient. They both spoke highly of the finalists who were chosen.
Rep. Dan Osman, an Overland Park Democrat, said the process has existed for about 75 years and this was another example of it playing out without major controversy or issue.
Sen. Ethan Corson, a Fairway Democrat, said someone could critique the process forever. Candidates could be asked more questions and spend more time talking about themselves, but someone could complain that the candidates didn’t make an appearance in every county.
Corson said Kansans do clearly have a voice in the process. Not only are voters in every congressional district represented, but there are retention elections where Kansans can kick someone out of office. It hasn’t happened, he says, because judges are doing their jobs.
Kansans will vote on whether to change the system in August 2026. Corson hopes the process remains. He’s a lawyer, and he said a commission made up of experts makes sense. If he was asked to find the best accountant or doctor in the state, he’d start by asking other accountants and doctors about possible options.
“You have three folks who are well qualified for the position (and) … that’s ultimately what we want to get out of this process,” he said.
