Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House votes to let Kansas voters decide how to select Supreme Court justices, sending amendment to ballot
Summary
After hours of debate over whether to keep the merit‑selection system or return to direct election of justices, the Kansas House voted to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would permit voters to choose how justices are selected.
TOPEKA — The Kansas House voted Wednesday to put a constitutional amendment before voters that would let Kansans choose whether to elect Supreme Court justices instead of using the state’s current merit selection commission.
Representative Matt Humphreys, the bill’s carrier, told members the measure is a voter‑choice question: “This is about letting the people decide if how they would like our judicial selection to continue from here on,” he said, explaining the resolution would allow the public to decide selection method at the ballot box.
Supporters framed the change as returning power to voters. Representative Lewis urged colleagues to trust Kansas voters and argued that merit selection had ceded authority to an unelected elite; he told the House that voters, when given a voice, would be motivated to learn and choose. Representative Humphreys said procedural details — for example whether races would be by district or statewide and whether elections would be partisan — would be decided later by statute if voters approve the amendment.
Opponents, including Representative Osman and Representative Vaughn, argued that merit selection protects judicial independence and that partisan elections invite large sums of outside money, misinformation and conflicts of interest. Osman said the current nominating commission includes representatives from every congressional district and helps ensure geographic representation; he warned that statewide popular elections would concentrate influence in more populous counties.
The floor exchange included detailed points about retention elections, rural lawyer shortages, and the practical costs of statewide campaigns. Humphreys and other supporters said procedural safeguards could be written into statute and noted several states use district elections for justices.
The House ultimately voted to report the measure favorably and then adopted the final action in a recorded vote that showed 84 members in favor and 40 opposed. That result met the constitutional threshold for sending a proposed constitutional amendment to the ballot.
What’s next: If the measure is certified, Kansas voters would decide the question at a future election. Specifics about how elections would be organized — districts or statewide, partisan or nonpartisan — would be left to subsequent legislation.
Votes at a glance: SCR 16‑11 — Motion to report favorable and send to ballot for voter decision on judicial selection method; final floor vote 84 yes, 40 no; outcome: adopted and moves to ballot placement procedures.
