By Anna Kaminski, Kansas Reflector
TOPEKA — Kansas Senators advanced a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would change how state supreme court justices are selected.
The amendment, which requires approval from two thirds of the Legislature and more than 50% of voters, would convert Kansas’ method for selecting state supreme court justices from a merit-based system to an elections system.
Most Senate Democrats opposed the change saying it was equivalent to “hanging a for sale sign” on the state supreme courthouse. Republicans said the change gives a voice to the people.
Under the current merit-based system, a nine-member judicial nominating commission that consists of five attorneys and four laypeople creates a list of potential appointees, and the sitting governor selects a justice from that list. Kansas Supreme Court justices serve six-year terms, but only if they are retained by voters. Appointed justices undergo a retention vote in a general election once they’ve served for a year and subsequently every six years.
Senate Minority Leader Dinah Sykes, D-Lenexa, said the change boils down to controversial issues including school funding, voting rights and reproductive freedom. Anti-abortion protesters held signs outside the entrance of the Senate chamber as legislators arrived.
“Once we put a for sale sign on the Kansas Supreme Court, we will never get justice back,” she said.
Sen. Ethan Corson, D-Prairie Village, echoed Sykes’ concerns that a partisan elections system would give funding undue influence over an outcome.
“The voice of the people is simply just going to be drowned out by dark money and special interest money flooding these elections,” he said.
Corson, who is a member of the Kansas Bar Association, said that under an elections system, the best lawyers for the job aren’t likely to run if they have to go through an 18-month statewide political campaign. The most qualified judges won’t make it on the court, he said.
Following Corson’s comments, Senate President Ty Masterson, R-Andover, said he was “taken aback” by the fear of the voters.
“Make no mistakes, politics is in it,” Masterson said. “It’s just behind the curtain.”
He alleged Democrats were contending that “the rest of us aren’t smart enough to choose.”
“Darkness is just cheaper,” Masterson said.
Thirteen other states select justices the way Kansas currently does. Equally as common are nonpartisan elections, which permit voters in 14 states to select a justice from multiple candidates who aren’t identified on ballots by party labels. Ten states, all in the northeast, select justices through gubernatorial nomination from a list of committee-approved appointees and Senate confirmation. Seven states conduct partisan elections. Four use a mix of methods, and two use a legislative appointments process.
If the resolution passes, a special election would be called on Aug. 6, 2026, so voters could weigh in on the change. Positions four and five would be elected in November 2030. Positions six and seven would be elected in November 2032. Each position would be subject to a six-year term. Vacancies that occur because of unexpired terms would also be filled by an election. Justices are required by law to retire after their 75th birthday or after completing the term during which they turn 75.
A number of advocacy organizations opposed the resolution when it was heard in committee, including voting-rights organization Loud Light, the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, the bar associations in Johnson County and Wichita, the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association and the Kansas Bar Association.
Fred Logan, on behalf of the state bar association, wrote in testimony that the resolution ignores the history of Supreme Court justice selection.
The introducer of the bill, Sen. Mike Thompson, R-Shawnee, pointed out on the Senate floor Wednesday that prior to 1958 voters selected justices through elections.
Logan said the combination of political campaigns for a seat on the state Supreme Court and the fair administration of justice “are a bad mix.”
“The merit selection process ensures that individuals will be appointed to the Supreme Court because they have shown the legal skill and temperament to honorably serve Kansans,” he said.
An amendment from Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, to clean up some language in the bill to make it clearer to voters, failed. She also said the process of hearing the resolution was rushed, “like many things this session.”
An amendment from Senate Majority Leader Chase Blasi, R-Wichita, passed. It would permit district court judges to retain their seats if one decides to run for a position on the state appellate court.
The bill is pending final action in the Senate and has yet to be heard in the House.
