Kansas voters face a significant decision on whether to elect state Supreme Court justices instead of the governor appointing them. This initiative, pushed by conservatives, stems from dissatisfaction with past court decisions on abortion, school funding, and the death penalty.
If the constitutional amendment is approved, supporters aim to elect a minimum of four conservative, anti-abortion justices by 2033. The push for this change comes amid concerns that increasingly combative and costly judicial elections in other states are rendering courts more partisan and less independent.
Expensive Election Campaigns
Last year, spending on a single state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin exceeded $100 million. Governor Laura Kelly, a Democrat opposed to the measure, expressed fears about involving the judicial branch in what she considers a dysfunctional system influenced by gerrymandering and undisclosed financial contributions.
Republicans cite multiple court rulings in Kansas over the past two decades as reasons for restructuring judicial appointments. These include a recent district court decision allowing a grace period for mail-in ballots, which GOP lawmakers had abolished. Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, aspiring to be the Republican nominee for governor, called this ruling “outrageous” and encouraged voters to support the amendment.
Contentious Court Decisions
The same judge blocked a 2025 law prohibiting gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Masterson labeled him “radical.” Republican critiques extend to education funding rulings since 2004, which required increased school spending to comply with the state Constitution.
If the amendment passes, Masterson has stated, “If we elect our Supreme Court, they won’t force you to spend money on schools.”
Abortion as a Central Issue
The idea of electing state Supreme Court justices gained traction among Republicans after a 2022 public vote upheld a landmark 2019 court decision affirming Kansas’ bill of rights guaranteed access to abortion. Campaign spending from both sides has surpassed $12 million. Legislators aiming to overturn the Supreme Court’s protections, including Masterson, contributed to drafting this year’s proposal.
Seven weeks after the 2022 vote, Attorney General Kris Kobach, while a candidate for the office, mentioned that electing justices would “slowly and quietly” place anti-abortion justices on the high court.
The vote-yes campaign’s largest financial supporter is a Nashville-based nonprofit backing Republican candidates, contributing $1.7 million of the campaign’s $3.7 million expenditures. Kansans for Life, a leading anti-abortion organization, invested at least $87,000 in mailers and texts recently to advocate for Proposition.
Opposition Spending
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood’s national and state affiliates contributed $1.6 million to the vote-no campaign, totaling over $8 million in expenses. Jamie Swan, a college teaching assistant, actively campaigns against the proposal, describing it as a potential power grab.
Appointment Process in Kansas
Supporters of the proposal overlook concerns that electing justices could give wealthy donors control over the Supreme Court. Elizabeth Patton, director of Americans for Prosperity, commented, “Globally and over history, even in its imperfection, the best system is democracy.”
Among US states, 22 elect Supreme Court judges, while Governors appoint them in 26 states. Legislatures appoint judges in South Carolina and Virginia. Kansas chose justices through elections for nearly 100 years until a constitutional amendment in 1958 altered the process, allowing the governor to appoint one of three finalists selected by a commission mainly composed of attorneys.
The last state to adopt a constitutional amendment similar to Kansas’ potential change was Mississippi in 1914. Since then, 18 states have amended their methods for appointing judges. Voters in Kansas decide every six years whether a justice remains on the bench by answering a yes-or-no ballot question, with none having removed a sitting justice. Conservatives argue that this means justices face no consequences for poor decisions.
Retirements and deaths enabled Governor Laura Kelly to appoint four current justices, including a district court judge who challenged longstanding abortion restrictions this year.
State Sen. Mike Thompson, a conservative Republican from the Kansas City area, backs the measure. He shares concerns regarding the inability to effectively contest judicial decisions, noting, “We don’t have a good way to fight back.”