Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas Senate approves constitutional amendment to change selection of high-court justices
Summary
The Kansas Senate approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 16 11, a proposed amendment to Article III of the state constitution that would shift selection of Kansas Supreme Court justices toward popular elections; the measure passed 27–13 amid debate over money in judicial elections and the composition of the nominating commission.
The Kansas Senate voted 27–13 to adopt Senate Concurrent Resolution 16 11, a proposed amendment to Sections 5, 8 and 15 of Article III of the Kansas Constitution that would change how justices for the Kansas Supreme Court are selected.
The measure would put the question of judicial selection to Kansas voters, proponents said, while opponents warned that electing judges would invite special-interest money and politicize the bench.
Supporters said the amendment restores authority to voters. President Masterson said the state “stands alone” with a lawyer-dominated nominating commission and argued it is time to “take that power and restore it to the Kansas people.” Opponents countered that elections would introduce dark money and undermine judicial independence. “I vote no on SCR 16 11,” Senator Corson said, “judicial elections would unleash on Kansas a raft of special interest in dark money, the likes of which our state has never seen.”
Senator Francisco said he voted no as well and urged better explanatory language for voters. He described an unsuccessful amendment to clarify the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission’s membership and said voters deserve a “more complete and accurate explanation” when deciding the issue.
The resolution began final-action consideration after the clerk read its title as a proposition to amend the specified sections of Article III. Senators from both parties offered floor explanations of their votes before the clerk closed the roll and announced the tally. With 27 votes in favor and 13 opposed, the concurrent resolution was declared adopted by the constitutionally required majority; as a constitutional amendment proposition, it will be submitted to voters according to the normal procedures for constitutional amendments.
Members who spoke during debate emphasized contrasting views about voter control versus risks of politicizing the judiciary. The record shows multiple senators joined either the “aye” or “no” explanations before the vote was closed and tallied.
Votes at the close of the roll call showed the resolution carried 27–13. The Senate journal will include the full roll call and record of explanations of votes.
