If you’ve caught headlines about a plan to elect Kansas Supreme Court justices and thought, “Wait, we don’t already do that?”, you're not alone.
Here’s what’s really happening, why it matters, and why some people are sounding the alarm.
The Big Picture:
Kansas lawmakers have passed a proposed constitutional amendment that would change how Supreme Court justices are selected. Instead of being chosen through a nonpartisan commission and appointed by the governor, justices would be elected directly by voters in public campaigns — just like politicians.
This would also remove restrictions that currently prevent justices from donating to political campaigns or holding party office.
The proposal now heads to Kansas voters for a statewide vote in August 2026.
This Could Turn Kansas Supreme Court Races Into Million-dollar Political Campaigns.”
Why Now?
The push has been building for years, especially among conservatives frustrated by court rulings on:
- Abortion rights
- School funding
- Voting access
- Death penalty appeals
Supporters, like Senate President Ty Masterson and Attorney General Kris Kobach, say this is about “giving power back to the people.” They argue the current process is “elitist” and dominated by lawyers.
Critics say this is really about reshaping the court for political gain.
Kansas uses a version of the “Missouri Plan” now, also used in 13 other states:
- A judicial nominating commission (5 lawyers, 4 non-lawyers) vets candidates
- The governor picks one from a shortlist
- After a year on the bench, justices face retention votes every six years
This system was adopted in 1958, after a political scandal involving judicial appointments. It was designed to keep politics and big money out of the courts.
What Critics Are Worried About:
- Big-money elections. Think outside groups flooding Kansas with attack ads — like what happened in Wisconsin, where Supreme Court races topped $50 million.
- Partisan campaigns. Judges might feel pressured to promise how they’ll rule.
- Fewer qualified candidates. Many skilled lawyers won't want to run political campaigns.
- Loss of public trust. Are judges following the law — or following the polls?
Former Chief Justice Lawton Nuss said:
“I wouldn’t have applied if it required a political campaign. I took an oath to the Constitution — not to donors.”
What’s Next?
- August 2026: Voters will decide whether to approve the amendment
- If passed, judicial elections would begin in 2028, with seven Supreme Court seats elected in staggered six-year terms
- Justices would be allowed to engage in partisan politics — something that’s currently off-limits
