Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas committee advances amendment to elect Supreme Court justices after heated debate
Summary
The House Committee on Judiciary voted 9-7 to pass SCR 16 11 favorably, a constitutional amendment that would replace the Supreme Court nominating commission with direct elections for Kansas Supreme Court justices. Supporters said voters should choose justices; opponents warned about politicizing the bench and campaign influence.
The House Committee on Judiciary voted 9 to 7 on Monday to pass SCR 16 11 favorably for passage, a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate the Supreme Court Nominating Commission and allow Kansas voters to elect Kansas Supreme Court justices directly.
Proponents said the change would restore a democratic check on the judiciary. “Do you trust the voters of Kansas to select the seven people who run the third branch of our government?” Representative Lewis asked during committee discussion. “I do, and I therefore support SCR 16 11.”
Supporters framed the amendment as a remedy for perceived elite control of judicial selection. Lewis traced the present system to mid-20th-century reforms and said the current nominating commission is dominated by lawyers. He read aloud a notice he received from the Supreme Court of Kansas about an election for chair of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission and argued that only a small subset of Kansans are eligible to vote in those internal elections.
Opponents said the current merit-based system, which includes retention votes for justices, better preserves judicial impartiality. Representative Vaughn said retention elections already give voters a mechanism to remove justices, and warned that partisan elections “open up our supreme court to an unprecedented amount of dark money and special interests.” Representative Osman challenged proponents’ statistics cited about the state supreme court being overruled, calling the cited figure “completely false” and explaining that supreme courts choose which cases to hear.
Other members raised practical concerns. Representative Barrett, who works in a district attorney’s office, said voters elect other high-stakes prosecutors and argued for voter selection. Representative Carmichael and others warned that partisan campaigns for high court posts invite electioneering tactics that could skew judicial independence.
Representative Lewis moved that the committee pass SCR 16 11 out favorably; Representative Barrett seconded. The committee voted, the chair called the ayes, and the clerk recorded a final tally of 9 in favor and 7 opposed. Members who asked to have their no votes recorded included Representative Vaughn, Representative Martinez and Representative Carmichael.
The bill will now proceed through the legislative process; a favorable committee report does not by itself change law. The committee did not adopt amendments to the constitutional language during the March 17 session.
Votes at a glance: SCR 16 11 — Motion to pass out favorably; mover: Representative Lewis; second: Representative Barrett; outcome: passed out favorably, 9–7 (no votes recorded: Representatives Vaughn, Martinez, Carmichael).
