House Judiciary holds heated hearing on SCR 16-11 to let voters elect Kansas Supreme Court justices

The House Committee on Judiciary on March 13 held a multi-hour hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 16-11, a proposed constitutional amendment that would replace the state’s Supreme Court nominating commission with direct election of Kansas Supreme Court justices.

Jason Thompson of the Reviser’s Office briefed the committee on the resolution, explaining that SCR 16-11 would amend Section 5 of Article 3 of the Kansas Constitution to abolish the nine-member Supreme Court Nominating Commission and provide for election of justices to six-year terms with numbered positions. The brief said the resolution would also amend Section 8 of Article 3 to remove the current prohibition on justices engaging in political campaigns; comparable statutory qualifications (Article 3, section 7 and related statutes) would remain unchanged. If the legislature adopts the resolution, the reviser’s office said, it would appear on a special election ballot scheduled for Aug. 4, 2026, held in conjunction with the primary election.

Proponents told the committee that elections would make justices accountable and restore a voice to the people. Attorney General Chris Kobach said the Missouri-style nominating commission is “an elitist system of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers,” blamed the commission process for a perception of poor decision-making at the Kansas Supreme Court, and cited a survey he said showed strong public support for electing justices. Elected county attorney Josh Nye and former nominating-commission participants described what they called limited vetting by lawyer-majority panels and urged public elections as a more transparent approach. Several sitting and former judges who testified — including retired Sedgwick County Judge Clark Owens, former North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Robert Edmonds and Sedgwick County Judge Kevin Smith — said they favored electing justices and described elections as a way to hold courts and judges accountable.

Opponents included the Kansas Bar Association, the Kansas Association of Defense Counsel, Kansas Women Attorneys for Freedom, the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association representative and other professional and civic groups and individuals. Fred Logan of the Kansas Bar Association said the merit selection system has served Kansas “extraordinarily well” for 67 years, warned that contested judicial campaigns would draw large amounts of outside money and argued that the nominating commission process produces geographically balanced courts. Other opponents — including representatives of school boards and public-education advocacy groups — said electing justices would risk politicizing decisions on areas such as school finance and that retention elections already provide a public accountability mechanism.

Committee members asked detailed questions about national reversal rates and the composition and vetting roles of nominating commissions. Jason Thompson and several witnesses clarified that the resolution would not change age or licensing requirements in Article 3, section 7 and that statutory requirements such as length-of-practice provisions remain in state statute. Witnesses on both sides urged the committee to review written testimony and external studies; the committee assistant reported more than 200 written-only opposition submissions would be grouped and made available to lawmakers.

No committee vote on SCR 16-11 was recorded during the hearing. Chairwoman Humphreys closed the hearing after opponents finished testimony and signaled other committee business would resume on Monday; the committee did not take final action on the resolution during the March 13 session.