This issue is so important and it has intentionally been placed on the traditionally low-turnout primary election. Read this very good explantion from a Republican DA on why Kansans should vote NO on the constitutional amendment to change how we select Supreme Court Justices.
From Marc Bennet
“What follows are my personal opinions regarding the upcoming vote on the election of Kansas Supreme Court justices:
I have been asked a number of times whether I support the constitutional amendment to elect Kansas Supreme Court judges. While I have strong opinions, I have been hesitant to say anything publicly because I have tried over the last 14 years as an elected District Attorney to keep my personal political opinions to myself. I’ve said dozens of times in public settings, “if you can tell whether I’m a Democrat or Republican by the way I run the office, then I’m not doing my job.” I believe that to be true and I am loath to give ammunition to anyone who would politicize the office.
But the stakes are very high in this matter and I don’t want to regret having remained silent. So, the simple answer is that I do not support this amendment.
What follows are my reasons. I offer these not because I presume to possess sage wisdom, but I do have a unique perspective as one of a handful of lawyers in the state who has appeared in district courts across the state, personally argued before the Kansas Supreme Court and personally appeared before the United States Supreme Court on an appeal from the Kansas Supreme Court. My career has trained me to arrive at conclusions based on facts and evidence, doing my best to remain as divorced as may be possible from emotion. I trust that some of you may find this helpful.
I’ll first address the arguments in favor of the amendment.
First, several proponents have argued that Kansas is the only state that uses a group of lawyers to select Supreme Court justices. That is not true. 34 states and the District of Columbia use independent commissions made up of lawyers or—like Kansas—a combination of lawyers and non-lawyers. If you’d like to confirm this, go to: https://www.brennancenter.org/…/judicial-nominating….
So, Kansas with its “Supreme Court Nominating Commission” consisting of 5 lawyers (elected by their fellow lawyers) and 4 non-lawyers (picked by the Governor) is hardly unique.
Second, it’s simply about the citizens’ right to vote. As far as arguments go that’s fine, but it’s hard to take this argument seriously for a number of reasons.
If the right to vote was the concern, why haven’t people in Kansas been complaining about our system for the past 68 years? From statehood in 1861, Kansans voted for our Supreme Court justices for nearly 100 years. In 1958 after a political scandal, our grandparents and great grandparents voted by super-majorities in the legislature and an overwhelming popular vote to go to our current merit-based system.
They were sick of a politicized Supreme Court.
Also, if voting for Supreme Court justices is an objective good, why doesn’t every district in Kansas elect local district court justices? They don’t. In most, a committee recommends names to the Governor. Why don’t we vote for United States Supreme Court Justices? Or federal judges? I didn’t hear any complaints about the recent appointments of Tony Mattivi or Tony Powell to the federal bench without having been popularly elected.
The reason is simple and something we all learned in high school government class — because the founding fathers wanted to keep judges out of politics. That’s why judges at the federal level serve for life. So they will be free to follow the law rather than succumbing to political pressure for fear of losing their careers over an unpopular decision.
Do you think politically elected justices would have desegregated schools in 1954 in Brown v BOE? Had we elected justices back then, can you imagine the campaigning that would have then followed in 1956 with promises to undo that decision?
Third, the current system is controlled by “elites” who engage in “backroom deals.” Pardon the sarcasm but, as opposed to what?!? The pristine transparency of partisan politics?!? Last year, $100 million was spent in Wisconsin for two state Supreme Court seats that each pay less than $200k per year. What on earth would cause that kind of money to be spent on two seats unless those investing their money were convinced they would receive a favorable return on investment??
The opposition arguments:
Politics – The primary argument of those opposed to the amendment is that this vote would infuse politics into justice. This is undeniably true. If we choose to vote for Supreme Court justices, they will by definition become politicians.
Abortion – many believe this entire effort is nothing but an attempt to overturn the Hodes abortion rights ruling issued by the Kansas Supreme Court in 2019, after the “value them both” vote failed in 2022. For some proponents, this is certainly true, as several have said as much in recorded comments and emails. I don’t know that all proponents are of one mind about this – but it’s clear this has been a motivating factor for many.
Geography — it may seem an odd thing to focus on, but over 80% of the lawyers in Kansas live in one of 5 counties: Johnson, Wyandotte, Leavenworth, Shawnee and Sedgwick. Nearly 2/3rds live in northeast Kansas. More lawyers in the KC metro area live in Kansas but practice in Missouri than live in all of rural Kansas. Northeast Kansas is a nice place and I have many friends up there but I don’t want our Supreme Court to be made up entirely of 7 lawyers from that one area of Kansas anymore than I want them to come solely from Wichita. There’s a reason we have 7 judges – because we want diverse perspectives in that chamber, not a monolith.
To address this concern, I have heard that the legislature plans to pass a law that cuts Kansas into quadrants, guaranteeing that each section of the state is represented by one justice on the state’s Supreme Court.
Great, but then we are electing supreme court justices based on zip codes not qualifications.
Qualifications – I trust that people on both sides of this issue want qualified, experienced lawyers serving as our Supreme Court Justices. Given the current state of politics, the notion that a partisan political system will draw the most qualified folks is hard to take seriously. A campaign will take months and millions of dollars. Lawyers have day jobs. Successful (I.e., qualified) lawyers have clients, cases and responsibilities. What successful lawyer in his or her right mind would sacrifice the successful practice they have built up over decades, leave their partners carrying the weight while they campaign, and put their families through the misery of a statewide campaign of this magnitude?
Yes, I ran for office. But I had to raise a little over $100,000.and campaign in a single county. There were no pacs or dark money interests from out of state. Have you seen the grotesque ads being run in the governor’s race currently? And we are just at the primary stage. Can you imagine what it will look like in the general? There is a reason I would never run for a statewide office. Ask the spouses of those who have what it was like.
In Sedgwick county we are one of the few districts in the state that elect our local judges. Every single judge in the 18th judicial district is now a Republican — even the liberal democrats. They have to be to get elected. So what do voters know about them other than they have an R next to their name? Our local judicial races rarely draw contested elections. In the upcoming judicial race this year there are 11 district judge positions on the ballot. No incumbent district judge has a challenger, one open seat has two candidates and the open magistrate position has two candidates. Meaning, 10 incumbents are running unopposed. The two candidates running for the open district judge are both nice young men, but neither has been in practice even 10 years.
The only “qualification” required to run for judge is to be a lawyer with 5 years of experience. What qualifications will there be — if any — to run for Supreme Court?
Finally – I’ve heard others argue that “it can’t get any worse,” because our Supreme Court is too liberal for our state.
There have been plenty of times in my 31 years as a lawyer that I have disagreed with the Kansas Supreme Court. On more than a few occasions, I have been profoundly disappointed by a decision. But I never doubted the sincerity of their effort, their commitment to what they believed the law required or their ethics. Above all, I never had reason to believe a decision was somehow the product of a debt owed to a political donor.
When people express frustration over criminal cases, I have to remind them (and myself) that our system is set up to protect the individual from the state, not to respond to public demand. “Due process” is owed to the defendant, not the cops, the judge, the prosecutors or—and this is a hard one to accept — the victims of crime. The 4th Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, the 5th Amendment right to silence, the 6th Amendment right to counsel, the confrontation clause (the right to confront the evidence and witnesses against you), the right to a public and speedy jury trial— all of these rights belong to the defendant. When the Supreme Court reaches a decision that upsets the public in a criminal case, it’s against this backdrop and for these reasons.
If we want to improve our system, there may be ways to do so worth exploring. Legislation that sets out specific qualifications, a review of the commission makeup, more public hearings or reports explaining why the commission chose certain names. All would be worthy topics for a robust discussion.
This amendment, however, is not the way to improve our system of justice.”
Origianlly posted on faceook on July 22, 2026