Public Comment

Kansas voters are scheduled to consider an August 2026 constitutional amendment that would replace the state’s merit-selection and retention system for Supreme Court justices with direct elections. Under the current system, a nominating commission recommends candidates, the governor appoints a justice, and voters later decide whether to retain that justice. Supporters of elections emphasize direct accountability. Opponents warn that campaigns could increase partisan pressure and dependence on political donors. Merit selection uses a screening body to recommend judicial candidates based on qualifications before an appointment is made. Judges exercise public power and need accountability, but their job is not to promise voters a result. The selection method should reward competence without turning every major case into campaign advertising.

Who should choose Kansas Supreme Court justices?

Overall results

1
58% support · excluded by 6%
7

Judges should be able to protect unpopular constitutional rights without fearing a targeted election campaign after every controversial ruling.

7

Screening applicants for legal ability and temperament reduces the risk that judicial office goes to the strongest fundraiser or most effective campaigner.

2
52% support · excluded by 2%
7

Voters should be able to remove judges whose decisions repeatedly conflict with the public rather than waiting on an insulated appointment system.

3
50% support · excluded by 4%
7

Nonpartisan elections should include strong contribution disclosure and recusal rules so campaign support does not quietly influence later cases.

7

Voters can compare experience and judicial philosophy without placing a party designation beside every candidate’s name.

4
39% support · excluded by 10%
7

Governors can be held accountable for judicial choices, while Senate confirmation provides public hearings and a second institutional check.

About the author