Kansas Senate committee advances proposal to let voters elect Supreme Court justices

Senate Concurrent Resolution 16‑11, a proposed amendment to Article 3 of the Kansas Constitution that would require Kansas voters to elect Supreme Court justices and abolish the state nominating commission, cleared committee of the whole review and was reported favorably to the full Senate on a voice vote Wednesday.

The measure, explained and carried on the floor by Senator Thompson, senator from Johnson, would replace the current merit‑selection process with direct elections and set a staggered schedule for justices’ terms: positions 1–3 at the November 2028 general election, positions 4–5 at November 2030, and positions 6–7 at November 2032, with subsequent six‑year terms as provided by law. “The citizens of Kansas who are qualified electors shall elect the justices of the Supreme Court,” Thompson said while reading the amendment’s proposed language.

The proposal drew sustained debate. Supporters said direct elections restore democratic accountability over the state’s highest court. “Those who live under the law should have a meaningful voice in selecting those who interpret it,” Senator (name on the transcript: Clays) said during debate, arguing that merit selection had put too much control in the hands of lawyers. Senator Blasey, the majority leader, framed the measure as returning selection to voters.

Opponents warned that popular elections would invite outside spending and politicize judicial selection. “It would bring in a raft of dark money,” Senator Corson said, citing recent out‑of‑state spending in other states’ judicial races and warning that outside donors could create conflicts of interest for justices. Senator Sykes argued the current nominating commission and retention elections provide a buffer that helps preserve judicial impartiality: “There’s no place for politics in the courts,” Sykes said.

The chamber considered two floor amendments. Senator Francisco, senator from Douglas, offered amendment 1704 to revise the ballot explanatory statement and add more description of the current nominating commission; the amendment failed on a voice vote. A different amendment (identified in the record as 1712) that would allow a sitting judge to remain in office while running for an appellate court seat was adopted by voice vote. After committee deliberations and the adopted amendment, chairing senator Peck moved adoption of the committee report; the motion carried on a voice vote.

Senators spoke to legal and practical consequences of the change. Supporters noted many states elect appellate justices; opponents and others pointed to states where expensive, heavily funded judicial campaigns coincided with national interest and large out‑of‑state spending. Several senators raised concerns about whether statewide campaigns would narrow the pool of candidates who would be willing to run and whether rural representation on the court would decline if elections favored candidates with large fundraising networks.

The committee report recommending SCR 16‑11 as amended was adopted in the Committee of the Whole and then reported back to the Senate; senators then adopted the committee’s report and the resolution as amended on voice votes, sending the measure forward for further consideration. The transcript record does not show a roll‑call vote on final passage; the actions reported were taken by voice vote and recorded as carried by the chair.