Kansas Senate Republicans take up plan to rewrite constitution to elect Supreme Court justices
Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Marla Luckert delivers her State of the Judiciary speech on Jan. 15, 2025, in the House Chamber. House Speaker Dan Hawkins, left, and Senate President Ty Masterson listen to her speech. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — Senate Republicans are taking an effort to make the Kansas Supreme Court an elected office, dismantling a decades-old merit-based nomination system for justices that voters put in place after a notorious scandal.
The move is largely a response to a high court decision establishing the right to terminate a pregnancy and three decades of court-imposed compliance with a constitutional mandate to provide suitable funding for public schools.
If adopted with two-thirds majorities in both the Senate and House, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1611 would place a loaded question before voters on the 2026 general election ballot. The question would ask voters to replace the current nominating commission, 'whose membership consists of a majority of lawyers,' with direct election of justices. The seven justice seats would be divided among the 2028, 2030 and 2032 elections, and terms would last six years.
Republicans and special interest groups that align with Republicans favor the change, which they say would shift power from an elitist organization to the people. Opponents raise concerns about reshaping the court through partisan politics and the dark money that dominates political campaigns.
'It's putting politics where they belong,' said Senate President Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican. 'They're going to tell you, 'Oh, it's putting politics in the system.' Politics are in the system. That's the worst kind of politics. It's veiled. It's in the black box, you know, behind the closed door.'
Under the current system, the Supreme Court Nominating Commission reviews applications for a vacancy and sends three finalists to the governor, who makes the appointment from those three finalists.
The commission members include one lawyer and one nonlawyer from each of the state's four congressional districts, plus an additional lawyer who serves as chair. Kansas Bar Association members elect the lawyers who serve on the commission, and the governor appoints the nonlawyers.
The commission considers experience, education, ethics, temperament, community service, impartiality and respect of colleagues when selecting the three nominees to send to the governor.
Each justice faces a retention vote in the next general election after appointment, and again every six years.
The system was put in place following a 1950s political scandal known as 'the triple play.'
Gov. Fred Hall, viewed as liberal Republican for the era, was defeated in the 1956 primary after a single two-year term. Democrat George Docking won in the general election.
Chief Justice Bill Smith, a supporter of Hall who was prepared to retire, decided to step down before Docking took office so that Hall could resign and take his seat. Smith and Hall resigned on the same day, allowing Lt. Gov. John McCuish to be sworn in as governor and appoint Hall to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.
Hall resigned from the court the following year so he could run again for governor, but again lost in the GOP primary.
During the 1957 session, the Legislature passed a constitutional amendment that established the current merit-based system. About 70% of voters approved the constitutional amendment in 1958.
In recent years, Republicans scrutinized the system in frustration over Kansas Supreme Court decisions that require the Legislature to adequately and equitably fund public schools. The 2019 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, and voters' rejection of a constitutional amendment on abortion in 2022, fueled renewed interest in abolishing the merit-based system for nominating Supreme Court justices.
But Republicans haven't been able to agree on whether to support the election of justices or adopt the federal model, where high court appointments are subject to Senate confirmation.
In a hearing Tuesday before the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee, attorney Josh Ney noted that no Supreme Court justice in the past 22 years had retired while a Republican was governor. Democratic governors have selected all but one of the justices during that period, with Republican Gov. Sam Brownback appointing his chief counsel, Caleb Steagall, to the court to fill a vacancy by a justice who was appointed to a federal court seat.
'We have traded the triple play for systemic double plays,' Ney said.
Fred Logan, who appeared before the committee on behalf of the Kansas Bar Association, said Kansas voters 'knew exactly what they were doing in 1958 when they installed the merit selection process.'
He pointed to the fact that no justice has lost a retention vote as evidence that the process works.
'I trust Kansas voters,' Logan said.
Blake Shuart, an attorney with the Wichita-based Hutton Law Firm, said lawyers in the state want to protect a system that has served their clients well, win or lose.
In the past year, Shuart said, the Kansas Supreme Court has issued decisions on 31 criminal cases, seven attorney discipline matters, three individuals who were seeking compensation for wrongful conviction, and cases dealing with parentage, tax valuations, a zoning code, a gambling license, a public nuisance issue between two farmers, and other matters.
'This is not a day in, day out job by our justices to press the lever on state politics, decide elections, school funding, reproductive rights, or any other things,' Shuart said. 'Those cases do come around every so often, but what they do every day, week and month of the year, is roll up their sleeves, read briefs, learn cases, ask good questions, listen to good lawyers, argue, deliberate, decide cases fairly based on even-handed application of the facts to the law, and then they sit down and have to write a long opinion.'
Rashane Hamby, policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, said the proposed resolution would inject politics into the courts and erode public trust in the judiciary.
The change would threaten the rule of law, weaken separation of powers, and allow special interests to influence the highest court.
'The Supreme Court should not be for sale to the highest bidder,' Hamby said. 'If this passes, it will be a radical departure from Kansas' longstanding commitment to judicial independence.'
Sen. Caryn Tyson, a Parker Republican, said justices in the past have run TV ads supporting a retention vote, which means money is already a factor. The ads she referenced were actually paid for and produced by entities that support the justices, not the justices themselves.
Logan, who has practiced law for 48 years, told Tyson the limited ads she had seen would be amplified with 'huge sums of money' if justices were elected.
'Let's not kid ourselves,' Logan said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Portraits of protest: A Kentucky photo gallery
Protesters march down College Street during the "No Kings" rally in Bowling Green, June 14, 2025. Demonstrators across the U.S. and Kentucky turned out to protest what they fear will be a loss of American democracy under President Donald Trump. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Austin Anthony) Kentuckians hoisted homemade signs and American flags and even donned costumes Saturday as they turned out by the thousands to oppose Republican President Donald Trump's leadership and priorities. Here is a gallery of scenes from Bowling Green, Lexington and Louisville, photographed by Austin Anthony, David Stephenson and Liam Niemeyer.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Michael Goodwin: Democrats with Trump Derangement Syndrome are undercutting Israel
One way to look at the first six months of Donald Trump's second term is that the wily president has managed to trick Democrats into fighting common sense and adopting bizarre and unpopular positions. Consider how he lured them into wildly protecting waste, fraud and abuse in the budget simply by having a plan to cut it. Then the president, by keeping a campaign promise, fooled his opponents into engaging in violent riots and trying to block his deportations of illegal immigrants, including those who had committed serious crimes here. And now comes Trump trick No. 3, which is unfolding before our eyes. Because the president's support for Israel is ironclad in its war with Iran, those infected by Trump Derangement Syndrome are reflexively pulling away from the Jewish nation. Already there are signs that Dems and their media handmaidens are moving toward condemning Israel for daring to protect itself from Iranian aggression. The left's budding resistance is camouflaged in squishy, both-sidesism mush. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries began by saying that 'Iran should never be allowed to become nuclear capable,' but quickly called for 'a reduction in hostilities.' 'I'm hopeful that cooler heads will prevail in the Middle East and the situation is de-escalated,' Jeffries told MSNBC. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the doofus Dems thought was veep-ready, addressed the initial Israeli strike by bemoaning that America is no longer a 'neutral arbitrator' and added: 'Who is the voice in the world that can negotiate some type of agreement and hold the moral authority? It might be the Chinese.' His fellow Minnesotan, Rep. Ilhan Omar, chimed in with her usual antisemitic dog-whistles. 'Israel knows America will do whatever they want and feels confident about their ability to get into war and have the American government back them up,' she posted. She also insisted Americans should be ready to 'either see their tax dollars being spent on weapons supplies to Israel or be dragged into war with Iran.' Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy plowed similar ground when he bizarrely insisted Israel's attack 'was clearly intended to scuttle the Trump Administration's negotiations with Iran, and risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America.' Amid all the crazy talk on the left, there are a few voices of sanity. One is Sen. John Fetterman, with the Pennsylvania Dem telling Jewish Insider he was shocked by his party pals' views. 'It was just astonishing to see colleagues criticizing these things. It's like, do you think you can negotiate with that regime? Do you think you want to run that scenario and allow them to acquire 1,000 pounds of weapons-grade uranium?' 'I can't understand, I can't even begin to understand that,' Fetterman said. Exceptions to the rule In the same vein, Bronx Congressman Ritchie Torres scoffed at an article in The Economist that doubts Iran was actually racing toward a nuke. Noting that the mullahs expanded their stockpile of 60% enriched uranium by 50% — a level far beyond any plausible civilian use, Torres writes on X that 'To cast doubt on Iran's nuclear ambitions at this point requires not just skepticism, but a willful suspension of one's functioning cerebral cortex.' Unfortunately, Fetterman and Torres are exceptions. For the vast majority of Dems, including those with press passes, the rule that Trump must be relentlessly resisted is forcing them into a corner that looks and sounds like a political loony bin. It's not a new phenomenon, but the shocking thing is that neither his second election nor the seriousness of America's problems at home and abroad have cured their derangement. Instead of being selective in their opposition to Trump, they are embracing their madness across the board with increasing intensity. Whatever he's for, they instantly and mindlessly are against. The Iran nuke issue is an especially strange example. As Fetterman and Torres note, the criticism of Israel ignores the crucial point: Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, has hidden its enrichment facilities for years and lied to UN inspectors. On its face, that would be troubling enough. But the most egregious element is that Iran has pledged not only to develop a nuke — but to use it on Israel. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters An enemy of the US The quivering Dems presumably are saving their full support of Israel for the day after it gets nuked. Then they'll wail and somehow blame Trump. Fortunately, the Jewish state is not in the mood for suicide and so it struck first, hitting enrichment facilities, degrading weapons systems and taking out the military leadership along with top scientists. The refusal of so many on the left to join Trump and back Israel wholeheartedly is all the more absurd when you remember that Iran pledges that after it destroys Israel, which it calls 'the little satan,' it will go after the US, the 'great satan.' That means Israel is attacking a sworn enemy of America, and displaying why it is one of our best and most important allies. Yet still most Dems can't see the moral imperative and national interest in Israel's action. Nor do they understand how the horrible events of Oct. 7 affect Israeli decisionmakers. That was the deadliest day for Jews since the end of the Holocaust, and it would be unforgivable if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others did nothing to stop Iran's race for nukes. Imagine if one of the ballistic missiles that hit Tel Aviv Saturday was carrying a nuclear warhead. That's the nightmare scenario, and it is reason enough to justify the Israeli strikes. Trump gets that, which is why he and Netanyahu adopted a good cop, bad cop routine. The president sincerely wanted Iran to voluntarily give up its nuclear ambitions and tried to make it happen through two months of direct negotiations. At the same time, he warned repeatedly there would be hell to pay if the Ayatollah said no. How much hell now depends on whether the Supreme Leader faces reality and tries to save himself and his regime by making a deal. If he doesn't, it's entirely possible the US, with its unique 30,000-pound buster bombs, will join Israel in obliterating the nuclear sites. Trump's calibrated, forceful stance is a welcome break with Joe Biden's many missteps after the Hamas attack in 2023. Initially, he was completely in Israel's corner, but, faced with criticism from within his party in an election year, Biden began threatening to withhold munitions unless Israel agreed to limit its responses. He even had Secretary of State Antony Blinken attend Israel's military cabinet meetings to decide which Gaza targets Israel could hit. All the while, Biden, who had lifted some of Trump's oil and banking sanctions on Iran, tried to sweet-talk the regime into another weak nuclear pact. Instead, Iran shifted much of the money to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis and kept working on developing the bomb. Thankfully, for both Israel and America, those days of Oval Office weakness are over.


Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Police make arrest after Texas capitol evacuated over threat to lawmakers
The Texas Department of Public Safety arrested a person in connection with threats against state lawmakers that saw the state capitol briefly evacuated on Saturday, the DPS said. The big picture: The threats against the lawmakers whom officials said planned to attend Austin's anti-Trump " No Kings" protest came hours after after two Democratic Minnesota legislators and their spouses were shot in what police described as "targeted attacks." Minnesota state House Democratic Leader Melissa Hortman and her husband fatally shot during the attack at their Twin Cities home. Details: The state capitol was evacuated due to a "credible threat" against the lawmakers, the DPS said just after 1pm local time. A DPS trooper later took one person into custody in connection with the threats, per a later DPS post. Texas Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick wrote spoke out against threats to lawmakers on X as he confirmed the "credible threat" that was made "to possibly kill members of the Texas legislature at the capitol":