Kansas committee hears hours of testimony on SCR 16-11 to put Supreme Court elections before voters

Senate leaders and state legal officials presented competing cases Thursday as the Kansas Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee heard testimony on Senate Concurrent Resolution 16‑11, a proposed constitutional amendment that would abolish the state’s Supreme Court Nominating Commission and require statewide elections for the Kansas Supreme Court justices.

The measure, presented by Jason Long to the committee, would amend Article III to replace the current nominating-commission appointment process with statewide elections for seven justices; under the draft schedule in the resolution, seats 1–3 would be on the ballot in November 2028, seats 4–5 in 2030 and seats 6–7 in 2032, with subsequent six-year terms. The proposal would also remove a current constitutional prohibition on justices’ participation in partisan organizations and would, if approved by two-thirds of both chambers, put the amendment on the November 2026 general-election ballot for voters to decide.

Supporters, including Senate President Ty Masterson and Attorney General Chris Kobach, told the committee the change would increase accountability to voters and dismantle what they described as an insular system dominated by lawyers. “It would be taking power from an elite group of lawyers and giving it back to your constituents,” Senate President Ty Masterson said. Attorney General Chris Kobach called the current arrangement “an experiment” he says has failed and cited a figure — “87.5%” — he said reflects the Kansas Supreme Court’s reversal rate in certain federal appeals since 2007 as evidence the current selection process yields problematic outcomes.

Kansas Solicitor General Anthony Powell, a former judge who said he had gone through the existing nominating system, said he supports giving voters the choice and told the committee voters and civic groups can evaluate candidate qualifications. Former North Carolina Justice Robert Edmonds and retired Sedgwick County district judge Clark Owens also testified in favor of the resolution, describing elections as a way to broaden the pool of judicial candidates and to increase public engagement and confidence in the courts. Representatives of Americans for Prosperity urged the committee to back the change as consistent with the way many states select high-court justices.

Opponents, including the Kansas Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, warned that statewide judicial elections would inject partisan politics and large campaign spending into the state’s highest court. Fred Logan of the Kansas Bar Association said the merit-selection process the voters adopted in 1958 has produced qualified justices and warned that political campaigns are a poor fit for selecting judges. “Political campaigns for positions on the Supreme Court and the fair administration of justice are a bad mix,” Logan told the committee.

Witnesses opposed to the measure also pointed to recent high-dollar judicial contests in other states and the risk of outside “dark money.” Nicole Revenaugh of the Women Attorneys Association for Freedom referenced a recent Wisconsin high-court election in which outside groups spent tens of millions of dollars. Racheenae Hamby of the ACLU of Kansas said the proposal “would inject politics into our courts, undermine judicial independence and erode public trust.”

Several witnesses and committee members pressed for factual details during questioning. Senator Francisco asked for clarification on the nominating commission’s composition; opponents replied that the nine-member commission includes both attorney and public members (four attorney members, four public members and an attorney chair). Committee staff were asked to provide additional background, including lists of current commission members and information about campaign spending in prior retention elections. Josh Nye, a proponent, told the committee the resolution is intended to address appointment “gameability” and to constitutionalize staggered terms to avoid concentrated turnover.

The hearing included repeated references to several court cases used by both sides as examples; proponents cited high-profile reversals such as the Carr brothers cases, while opponents emphasized the day-to-day appellate work of the court and noted retention elections have historically resulted in high levels of voter support for sitting justices. Blake Stewart, representing a private law firm, noted that in February 2022 six justices faced retention and each was retained with between 64.7% and 72.9% of the vote.

No committee vote on SCR 16‑11 was recorded during the hearing. Committee members indicated staff would collect additional materials requested during questioning — including data on past retention campaign funding — and the committee chair closed the hearing after opponent testimony. The Federal and State Affairs Committee scheduled other business for the following day.

Discussion vs. decision

The record shows an extended hearing with proponent and opponent testimony, detailed questioning by senators and requests for follow-up research; it does not show any formal committee motion or vote to advance SCR 16‑11. Committee directions included a request that research staff compile spending and commission-composition information for members to review.

Ending

The committee held a full hearing but took no formal action on SCR 16‑11. Committee staff will circulate the additional materials senators requested; the resolution would still require two-thirds approval in both chambers before appearing on the 2026 ballot.