Kansas legislators discuss judicial election versus merit selection amid public concerns

The House Committee on Judiciary convened on March 13, 2025, to discuss significant issues surrounding the judicial selection process in Kansas. The meeting featured a series of inquiries and testimonies regarding the merits of the current merit selection system versus a potential shift to popular elections for judges.

The session began with a discussion led by Representative Boehai, who sought clarification on the implications of judges taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and how this relates to their decision-making processes. This inquiry set the stage for a broader examination of judicial accountability.

Representative Carmichael directed questions to Mr. Morantz regarding past elections in Kansas that considered reverting from the merit selection system to a popular election model. Morantz highlighted a notable instance in February 2008, where Johnson County voters decisively rejected a measure to switch to judicial elections, with nearly 60% favoring the retention of the merit selection system. He emphasized that no state that has adopted a merit selection model has reverted to elections, suggesting that Kansas would be an outlier if such a change were made.

The conversation then shifted to the nomination process for Supreme Court justices. Terry Campbell, a former member of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, explained that openings are publicly announced, allowing interested candidates to apply. The application process includes submitting references and prior case experiences, which are reviewed by the commission.

Further discussions involved the effectiveness of the current system. Representative Sweely questioned Mr. Logan from the Bar Association about the merits of the existing judicial selection process. Logan defended the merit selection system, citing its long-standing success and the quality of justices it has produced. He expressed concern over the potential influence of large campaign contributions on judicial elections, arguing that such circumstances could undermine the fair application of law.

The committee concluded with a recognition of the complexities involved in judicial selection, with members acknowledging the need for careful consideration of the implications of any changes to the current system. The meeting underscored the ongoing debate about judicial accountability and the balance between public input and the integrity of the judicial process in Kansas.