Blab News
Kansas Voters Reject Amendment to Elect Supreme Court Justices
Kansas voters turned down a constitutional amendment that would have shifted the state’s Supreme Court from a merit‑based appointment system to direct elections, a decision that could reshape the judiciary’s future.
On Tuesday, 62 percent of voters answered “no,” with 593,695 ballots counted by 11:15 p.m. The measure, placed on the primary ballot by the Republican‑controlled Legislature during the 2025 session, would have let the public choose justices, lifted restrictions on political activity and campaign finance, and granted the Legislature discretion over partisan versus nonpartisan, statewide versus district elections.
Supporters argued the change would grant voters a genuine voice in the court’s composition, while opponents warned that opening the doors to money would let wealthy donors sway the highest court. Retired Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier, who opposed the amendment, called the result “beyond gratifying,” adding that the court must remain fair and impartial and cannot be bought for an unfair advantage.
Rep. Danedri Herbert, chair of the Kansas Republican Party, described the vote as “the most important election of our lifetime,” warning that the amendment would decide whether Kansas becomes “Detroit or a land of prosperity.” In contrast, opposition groups—American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, and Kansas Appleseed—formed Kansas United for Impartial Courts to counter the proposal. Executive director Micah Kubic warned that the amendment would allow “out‑of‑state billionaires to buy the court.” Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, accused the measure of undermining access to abortion, misleading voters, and politicizing the state’s highest court.
The current selection process dates back to 1958, when voters approved a merit‑based system after the 1956 “triple play” scandal involving a governor, a chief justice, and a governor’s resignation. The scandal prompted the creation of a commission that vets candidates and forwards three finalists to the governor, who appoints a justice. The appointed justice faces a retention election after one year and again every six years. No justice has ever lost a retention vote.
Proponents of the amendment claimed that retention elections are a “rubber stamp” and that justices should run for office like other politicians. Rep. Bob Lewis said the retention process is not an election at all, noting that voters only have a yes or no choice. Lewis’s video ad was paid for by Rep. Blake Carpenter’s reelection campaign.
Campaign finance reports show that at least $12.8 million—much of it dark money—funded both sides of the debate. The Kansas Attorney General’s political action committee and other conservative groups ran ads criticizing the current selection process, arguing that the amendment would provide more certainty that the current justices would decide cases.
The amendment’s defeat follows a similar 2022 measure that would have removed abortion rights from the state constitution, which voters rejected by 60 percent. Democratic U.S. Representative Sharice Davids cautioned that the Legislature’s frustration with court rulings should not lead to a constitutional change.
The day before the vote, newly appointed Justice Christopher Jayaram issued an opinion striking down several abortion restrictions under state law. Jayaram, a former Johnson County district judge, was selected by Governor Laura Kelly from three finalists for an open seat.
With the amendment rejected, Kansas will continue to use the merit‑based selection system. The Legislature has no authority to alter the process until a future constitutional amendment is approved. No immediate legal or policy changes are expected.
The result reflects a broader debate over judicial selection in the United States, where some states use merit selection while others hold partisan or nonpartisan elections. For Kansas, the vote confirms the public’s preference for a non‑electoral, merit‑based approach to choosing the state’s highest court.
On Tuesday, 62 percent of voters answered “no,” with 593,695 ballots counted by 11:15 p.m. The measure, placed on the primary ballot by the Republican‑controlled Legislature during the 2025 session, would have let the public choose justices, lifted restrictions on political activity and campaign finance, and granted the Legislature discretion over partisan versus nonpartisan, statewide versus district elections.
Supporters argued the change would grant voters a genuine voice in the court’s composition, while opponents warned that opening the doors to money would let wealthy donors sway the highest court. Retired Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier, who opposed the amendment, called the result “beyond gratifying,” adding that the court must remain fair and impartial and cannot be bought for an unfair advantage.
Rep. Danedri Herbert, chair of the Kansas Republican Party, described the vote as “the most important election of our lifetime,” warning that the amendment would decide whether Kansas becomes “Detroit or a land of prosperity.” In contrast, opposition groups—American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, and Kansas Appleseed—formed Kansas United for Impartial Courts to counter the proposal. Executive director Micah Kubic warned that the amendment would allow “out‑of‑state billionaires to buy the court.” Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, accused the measure of undermining access to abortion, misleading voters, and politicizing the state’s highest court.
The current selection process dates back to 1958, when voters approved a merit‑based system after the 1956 “triple play” scandal involving a governor, a chief justice, and a governor’s resignation. The scandal prompted the creation of a commission that vets candidates and forwards three finalists to the governor, who appoints a justice. The appointed justice faces a retention election after one year and again every six years. No justice has ever lost a retention vote.
Proponents of the amendment claimed that retention elections are a “rubber stamp” and that justices should run for office like other politicians. Rep. Bob Lewis said the retention process is not an election at all, noting that voters only have a yes or no choice. Lewis’s video ad was paid for by Rep. Blake Carpenter’s reelection campaign.
Campaign finance reports show that at least $12.8 million—much of it dark money—funded both sides of the debate. The Kansas Attorney General’s political action committee and other conservative groups ran ads criticizing the current selection process, arguing that the amendment would provide more certainty that the current justices would decide cases.
The amendment’s defeat follows a similar 2022 measure that would have removed abortion rights from the state constitution, which voters rejected by 60 percent. Democratic U.S. Representative Sharice Davids cautioned that the Legislature’s frustration with court rulings should not lead to a constitutional change.
The day before the vote, newly appointed Justice Christopher Jayaram issued an opinion striking down several abortion restrictions under state law. Jayaram, a former Johnson County district judge, was selected by Governor Laura Kelly from three finalists for an open seat.
With the amendment rejected, Kansas will continue to use the merit‑based selection system. The Legislature has no authority to alter the process until a future constitutional amendment is approved. No immediate legal or policy changes are expected.
The result reflects a broader debate over judicial selection in the United States, where some states use merit selection while others hold partisan or nonpartisan elections. For Kansas, the vote confirms the public’s preference for a non‑electoral, merit‑based approach to choosing the state’s highest court.
