TOPEKA — Changing the way Kansas Supreme Court justices get on the bench is a way of “giving power back to the people,” according to Senate President Ty Masterson.
Others fear electing justices would mean increasingly dark and divisive elections.
Masterson and a group of Senate Republicans in early March celebrated the passage of Senate Resolution 1611, which would give Kansans the choice of ditching the nomination and appointment system currently used to select state Supreme Court justices. It proposes allowing justices and candidates for the court to make political contributions and take part in political campaigns as a part of a popular vote election.
The proposal is a familiar one. Attempts to rework the judicial selection process in favor of bolstered legislative control have failed several times over the past two decades — most recently in 2022 and most notably under the leadership of former Republican Gov. Sam Brownback in 2016.
Former Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Lawton Nuss underwent the nominating and appointment process in 2002. More than a decade of his 17 years on the bench were spent as chief justice.
Nuss said if he had to campaign in a partisan election to sit on the state Supreme Court, he likely wouldn’t have tried to become a justice.
“Raising millions of dollars like in other states’ supreme court elections, feeling beholden to my contributors, and campaigning on what I would do if elected were my reasons years ago,” he said. “I stand by them today.”
DEMOCRATS, advocates and critics of the switch say that not only are elections at risk of being flooded with dark money and political interests, but issues protected by court decisions including abortion rights, voting rights and public education funding also run the risk of being toppled.
Davis Hammet, president of Loud Light Civic Action, said the challenges to the judicial system are important to understand. The Kansas Supreme Court has acted as a “final safeguard” for Kansans, he said.
“It’s not about people. It’s about raw political power,” Hammet said.
Supermajorities in both chambers and a conservative leadership determined to push a shared legislative agenda this year could mean that Republicans have a real shot at putting the question to voters. A change to justice selection requires a constitutional amendment, which only can occur in Kansas with voter approval and support from a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature. It does not require the governor’s signature.
The resolution is awaiting a hearing in the House, which is scheduled for Thursday. Senators passed the resolution in early March with the exact number of votes needed to constitute a two-thirds majority.
DISSATISFACTION with Kansas’ justice selection process often shares company with a distaste for state Supreme Court decisions.
Sen. Mike Thompson, a Johnson County Republican, described the merit-based selection process as insulated and opaque.
“If you get a nominee who takes the bench, we don’t have any way to deal with the bad decisions that may come out of that decision process,” Thompson said during a March 5 debate on the Senate floor.
