Early voting for the Aug. 4 primary has started, and every registered voter, including independents, has something on the ballot to vote on, as the Kansas Legislature put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
The amendment changes how Kansas Supreme Court judges take office.
The only reason to support it is if you wish to dissolve the Kansas Supreme Court as a check and balance and subject it to the same out-of-state funds, partisan hijinks and lobbyist influence as our State Legislature.
On the surface, voters are being asked to amend the Constitution to allow for a public vote on Supreme Court justices.
That sounds pretty straightforward.
We’ve already seen targeted advertising saying such a message: direct election of Supreme Court justices means more power to the people.
Here’s what’s not being said.
The constitutional amendment removes all prohibitions against Kansas Supreme Court justices directly or indirectly making contributions to or holding any office in a political party or organization or taking part in political campaigns.
That bit of language is key to understand.
It sets the table for partisan Supreme Court elections and, in turn, replaces objective justices with party-picked sycophants.
Their rulings would be beholden to the same party political machines that dominate the Kansas Legislature. We would see elections similar to those in other states that have such systems. Wisconsin saw Elon Musk and George Soros pour in millions of dollars to decide its Supreme Court seats.
So yes, Kansans would technically get a choice, but you’d have outside billionaires deciding what information Kansans see advertised about the candidates. And either choice would be subject to a party structure to continue to be elected.
We’d argue that most Kansans, while they may identify with a party, sure don’t want the law being interpreted by people who amount to partisan puppets. It should be interpreted based on the merit of the case, debate and previous jurisprudence.
Some of you may be asking how this is any worse than what Kansas already has. Do not Governors already appoint justices?
The answer to that is not quite.
Kansas is one of 26 states where there is a gubernatorial appointment to fill the Supreme Court. Our system is unique in the sense that a non-partisan committee selects finalists for the governor to consider, as outlined in the Kansas Constitution.
This committee consists of four members appointed by the governor, four members elected by Kansas attorneys based on Kansas’ four congressional districts, and a chair, also elected by attorneys in Kansas.
Why is it this way? It’s due to a statewide vote and outrage following what’s known as “the triple play.”
Gov. Fred Hall lost a primary election in 1956. The following January, Hall ally Chief Justice Bill Smith retired from the Kansas Supreme Court before Hall’s successor took office, and in quick succession, Hall resigned, and Lt. Gov. John McCuish became governor.
McCuish’s only act as governor was to appoint Hall to the Kansas Supreme Court.
This caused the state to get mad and create a merit-based appointment process, which aimed to prevent brazen backroom deals.
This system works.
Not only do you have candidates selected by merit, but you still have a confirmation process by the State Senate.
Then voters still get regular retention votes on Supreme Court candidates.
We don’t know if you knew this or not, but you already do have a non-partisan vote involving Supreme Court justices. New appointments have a retention vote after a year. Then they have retention votes every six years.
So why is this happening now?
The short answer is the Kansas Legislature hasn’t been successful in subverting the will of the electorate or the Supreme Court on some issues.
Those on the far right in the state have long bumped heads with the Supreme Court, which has a habit of interpreting the various unconstitutional laws passed by the Legislature as unconstitutional.
In 2016, Sam Brownback and Co., took a break from destroying the state to lead an unsuccessful, but well-funded, attempt to vote out Supreme Court justices on retention votes.
That failed in all cases.
Meanwhile, in 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the Kansas Constitution protects the right to an abortion as part of a person’s bodily autonomy, in relation to a law that banned second-trimester abortions.
It then affirmed this ruling in 2024.
This caused the Legislature to put in place a past constitutional amendment vote to change the state constitution to overturn the ruling.
Kansans didn’t agree with trusting personal decisions to State Legislatures, and nearly 60 percent voted against that amendment.
With the failure of the amendment and the failure of targeted retention votes, a new partisan voting setup would be yet another route to ensure the Supreme Court is politically aligned with the state’s gerrymandered legislative representation.
So, understand that’s what you will be voting on in August. If you like the idea of party boss control and piles of dark money having a direct influence on the interpretation of what rights you have, vote to dismantle the system.
If you don’t like that idea, vote against it.
We’re all in favor of increased democracy. It’s why we think the state needs a constitutional amendment to allow for petition items to be placed on the ballot.
The goal for this vote, however, isn’t increased democracy for Kansas but instead the capture of our judicial system.
We don’t need a second Kansas Legislature. We need an objective court.
– The Hutchinson Tribune Editorial Board