Confused by the Supreme Court Amendment Commercials? Here’s What They’re Really About

If you’ve been watching television lately, you’ve probably seen a steady stream of commercials urging you to vote “Yes” or “No” on the Kansas Supreme Court constitutional amendment.

The ads make the issue sound simple.

Supporters call it the “Right to Vote Amendment,” saying Kansans should have the right to elect Supreme Court justices.

Opponents counter that electing judges would open the door to political campaigns, special-interest money and outside influence over the state’s highest court.

So what’s the amendment really about?

The answer matters because the Kansas Supreme Court has made decisions that affect nearly every Kansan — from public school funding and abortion rights to business lawsuits, criminal appeals and how the Kansas Constitution is interpreted.

On Aug. 4, voters will decide whether to dramatically change how members of the state’s highest court are selected.

Behind the television commercials lies one of the most significant proposed changes to Kansas government in decades.

Why is This Amendment on the Ballot?

The debate didn’t begin because anyone questioned whether current justices were qualified.

It began after a series of Kansas Supreme Court decisions frustrated many Republican lawmakers.

Among the biggest were rulings requiring the Legislature to adequately fund public education and the 2019 decision declaring abortion is a constitutional right under the Kansas Constitution.

Legislative leaders have repeatedly criticized those rulings, arguing the court has become too powerful and no longer reflects the values of many Kansans. Attorney General Kris Kobach has also publicly identified changing how Supreme Court justices are selected as part of the path toward allowing Kansas to ban abortion.

In television commercials, supporters describe the amendment simply as giving Kansans the right to elect their Supreme Court justices.

However, opponents argue the amendment is really about reshaping the court after lawmakers were unable to achieve some policy goals through the existing judicial system.

How Does the Current System Work?

Since 1958, Kansas has used what’s known as the Missouri Plan to select members of the Kansas Supreme Court. The system was adopted after a political scandal involving judicial appointments convinced voters to move away from judicial elections.

When a vacancy occurs, a nine-member Supreme Court Nominating Commission reviews applicants.

The commission consists of five attorneys elected by lawyers and four non-lawyers appointed by the governor, with one citizen member representing each of Kansas’ four congressional districts.

Commission members review hundreds of pages of applications, writing samples, disciplinary records, references and judicial evaluations before interviewing candidates.

Former commission member Jay Fowler said commissioners are not trying to determine how someone might rule on abortion, taxes or any other issue. Instead, they’re asking different questions:

• Does the candidate have integrity?
• Do they have good judgment?
• Can they separate personal opinions from the law?
• Do they have the temperament to treat everyone fairly?
• Can they clearly explain their decisions?

“We’re looking for people who will fairly and impartially consider the facts, apply the law and explain how they reached that decision,” Fowler said.

The commission forwards three finalists to the governor, who appoints one.

Every six years, justices stand in a retention election where voters decide whether they should remain on the court.

Why do Supporters Want to Change it?

Supporters argue the current system gives too much influence to lawyers and not enough to ordinary Kansans.

They question why attorneys select a majority of the nominating commission when no other profession has that level of influence over another branch of government.

They also argue Kansans should have the same right to elect Supreme Court justices that they have when choosing governors, legislators and many local judges.

Opponents Say Judges Should Answer to the Law — Not Politics

Supporters of elections argue judges should be more accountable to voters, but opponents say that’s not how judges are supposed to make decisions.

Former Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier said judges are supposed to base every decision on only three things: the facts of the case, the law and the Constitution. Personal opinions, political beliefs, campaign promises and public pressure are not supposed to influence judicial decisions.

Opponents say campaigning for office introduces new pressures judges were never intended to face. Instead of asking only, “What does the law require?” judges seeking election could also face pressure from campaign donors, political parties or public opinion.

Can Elections Produce the Best Judges?

Opponents also argue statewide elections reward candidates who are the best campaigners, not necessarily the best judges.

Under the current system, members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission spend months reviewing applications, writing samples, disciplinary records, judicial evaluations and references while interviewing candidates about ethics, judgment and judicial temperament.

A statewide election measures something very different: whether a candidate can raise money, build name recognition, communicate through advertising and win votes.

Beier pointed to Wisconsin’s 2025 Supreme Court race, where more than $100 million was spent on a single judicial election. She warned that similar races in Kansas could attract billionaires, corporations and national political organizations hoping to influence who serves on the state’s highest court.

“If you’re getting a million dollars from a billionaire or special-interest group,” former commission member Jay Fowler said, “it creates at least the appearance of potential bias.”

Former Wichita City Council member Brandon Johnson questioned whether even well-qualified judges could completely ignore the pressure that comes with millions of dollars in campaign spending.

The Amendment Leaves Many Questions For Later

The constitutional amendment asks voters whether Kansas Supreme Court justices should be elected, but it says very little about how that election system would actually work.

Instead, many of the details would be left for the Legislature to decide after the amendment is approved.

The amendment does not specify whether Supreme Court elections would be partisan or nonpartisan, how vacancies would be filled, how the state would transition from the current merit-selection system to elections, or when current justices would first have to stand for election. Those and other details would be determined later through legislation.

Former Justice Carol Beier said voters are being asked to approve the concept of electing Supreme Court justices while many of the rules governing that system have yet to be written. Opponents say that leaves voters without a complete picture of what the final system would look like.

Are Retention Elections Enough?

Supporters of the amendment argue retention elections rarely provide meaningful accountability because many voters know little about the judges appearing on their ballots and often skip those races.

Opponents acknowledge that criticism but note voters once had far more information available before retention elections.

Beier said Kansas previously funded a comprehensive judicial evaluation program that surveyed attorneys, jurors, court employees and others who interacted with judges. Those evaluations were published to help voters decide whether judges should be retained.

She said legislative funding for that program was later eliminated, making it more difficult for voters to learn about judges before casting their ballots.

Why This Vote Matters

This amendment is about much more than how Kansas Supreme Court justices get their jobs.

The justices selected under whichever system voters choose will decide future cases involving abortion rights, public school funding, constitutional rights, business disputes, criminal appeals and other issues that affect communities across Kansas.

Supporters say the amendment gives Kansans the right to elect their Supreme Court justices and makes the court more accountable to the public.

Opponents argue the current merit-selection system is more likely to identify highly qualified judges and protect them from the political and financial pressures that often accompany statewide elections.

Whichever system voters choose on Aug. 4 will shape not only how Kansas selects its Supreme Court justices, but also how future courts decide some of the state’s most important legal questions for years to come.