On March 7, the Kansas Senate passed SCR 1611. It would amend the State Constitution to say that voters elect Supreme Court Justices. If it passes the House, then the voters would vote on the idea in August 2026.
Here is the text. It is vague and does not say whether the elections would be partisan or non-partisan.
Partisan.
For district judges, Kansas permits each district to determine whether elections will be by partisan election or by non-partisan appointment with retention elections. K.S.A. 25-202 provides that elections of national, state, county, and township offices be by partisan election, with nomination by major party primary, minor party convention, or independent petition. K.S.A. 25-202(d) essentially provides that the rest of K.S.A. 25-202 does not apply to Supreme Court elections or those districts that have adopted non-partisan appointment.
In effect, the proposed constitutional amendment says that Kansas should elect Supreme Court justices in the same way that all offices are elected (i.e. by partisan election). This may not apply to municipal, school district, and other similar offices.
To fully comprehend the proposed constitutional amendment, one should realize that it does not amend all sections of Article 3 of the Kansas Constitution. In particular, it does not modify Section 6 which includes the provision that district judges may be elected in partisan elections or by non-partisan appointment.
However it does amend a reference in Section 8 that prohibits partisan political activity by Supreme Court justices or district judges appointed by non-partisan commission. Political activity is permitted by district judges elected by partisan election. The original text of the proposed amendment would permit Supreme Court justices to participate in partisan political activity. The proposed amendment has been modified in the legislative process to permit district judges who had been appointed by the non-partisan convention to engage if partisan political activity if they are running for the partisan Supreme Court.
The sponsor of the proposed amendment said that the committee considering the resolution should realize that the non-partisan commissions are partisan, but that the partisanship is obscured from the public. He also mentioned an upcoming Supreme Court election in Wisconsin. Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin have become extremely partisan as control is closely balanced.
One might also recall the retention election in which California Chief Justice “Liberal” Rose Bird was ousted, or consider what would happen if the US had retention elections for Justices Kagan or Alito, or any other justices.
Since Kansas permits district court judges to be either elected in partisan elections, or appointed by a non-partisan commission, and to switch between the two systems, there may be a history of a district switching back to partisan elections. Voters might then wonder, why can’t we vote for Supreme Court justices as well.
nonpartisan judics via APPV
@AZ,
Kansas permits each judicial district to decide whether to elect their district judge by partisan election, or to appoint them through a non-partisan appointment system with retention elections.
Would the system that you favor be imposed by diktat, overriding the electorate?
Trump is my hero, and mass deportation
Is just the first step to an all White nation!
JR –
electorates are often brainwashed to vote for tyrants and their machinations —
see Hitler and nazis in 1929-1932 Germany elections
Just like when Thomas W Jones voted for Biden in 2020.
IMO, judges should be elected or confirmed by electoral colleges, and the electors should be chosen by lottery from citizens who have actually served on a jury. This might motivate more people to accept jury duty.
Or, instead of a lottery, the most senior, or most experienced, members of the experienced jury pool would be first offered the next available positions of the judicial electoral college.