A recent letter to the editor suggests that the goal of the constitutional amendment is to give Kansans a greater voice concerning who serves on the state’s highest court.
If that is true, why is the proposed amendment on the primary ballot on August 4?
Why not put the question to a vote at the general election in November when more Kansans turn out to vote?
The answer to these questions is because the proposed constitutional amendment is intended to politicize the judiciary.
Moderate Republicans, Independents, and Democrats must turn out to vote on this important constitutional question. Please Vote No on the constitutional amendment. Jennifer M. Kassebaum Did you Know? Part III, What about the Kansas Supreme Court? - Once the Supreme Court Nominating Commission has fully investigated each applicant and interviewed them in full public view, three potential justices for the Kansas Supreme Court are selected. The potential justice’s names are sent to the Governor for additional interviews and research. Once the Governor has selected the applicant to fill the open seat on the Court, they are sworn into office. During the first election cycle, of the new justices term, they are put on the ballot for a retention vote. If they are retained, the voters of Kansas will decide whether to retain them every 6 years. Every registered voter in Kansas has a vote on every Kansas Supreme Court justice every 6 years, after their first year of retention. Retirement is mandatory at 75 years of age.
According to Kansans for Fair Courts, our state strongly believes our courts should be fair and impartial. They should protect the constitutional rights of every Kansan and politicians have no place in our courtrooms. Kansas has one of the best systems in place for selecting justices because it is based on merit and not on political access. The system is considered the gold standard for selecting justices to the Court. It is a transparent system and allows everyone to have a voice in the process through voting on retention of the justices. The job of the supreme court is to 1) review decisions of lower courts and serve as the highest court of appeal. They hear appeals in serious criminal cases (capital punishment or class A felonies) that involve constitutional statutes and reviews cases from the Kansas Court of Appeals (the next highest court) They also have administrative authority over state courts. They establish rules for case processing, judicial education and ensure courts operate efficiently.
Finally, the Court regulates attorneys and judges in Kansas. They oversee bar admissions, continuing legal education, set codes of professional and judicial conduct and handle disciplinary actions. (Kansas Judicial Center).
Finally, a recent Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court stated: “The ultimate stage in the merit-based selection process is a democratic one, which requires the people of Kansas to have the final word. Starting with the first statewide election after Walsh has served 12 months, Kansas voters will decide whether to retain her to start a 6-year term. If she is retained, voters will have the same opportunity every six years after that, much like I faced retention votes in 2004, in 2010, and 2016. I don’t know how much more democratic you can get. In the Kansas Constitution, the people created a system that has worked well for 67 years to select justices based on their merit. These justices do not serve one party or ideology. Instead they serve the people of Kansas and the rule of law. Like Larkin Walsh will.” (Kansas Reflector, August 2025 - in response to the newest justice, Larkin Walsh. - Lawton Nuss, Retired Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice). Remember, decisions from the Kansas Supreme Court are to take into consideration the Kansas Constitution as well as the United States Constitution. Because Kansas Supreme Court decisions are made by each justice, I want them to have expertise, experience and the educational background to weigh fairly, when making those decisions. A NO vote will keep our current system that uses this criteria for appointments to the court. Shelley Dunham I appreciated Jennifer Kassebaum’s perspective as an attorney in her June 29 letter regarding the proposed amendment to elect Kansas Supreme Court justices by popular vote. In no way did I think she was “flashing her credentials,” as another letter writer has suggested. She makes insightful points about a system she has worked in and understands.
My own professional path has twice intersected with the legal world. I served as administrative assistant to Judge Karl Friedel in the 18th Judicial District of Kansas, and also did a stint working for a group of civil attorneys in Wichita. I can tell you that all attorneys are not created equal. Not all have the intellectual bandwidth, the breadth of experience or the disposition required to consider the complex legal issues that come before the Kansas Supreme Court.
I believe it’s essential that attorneys continue to review the credentials of high court applicants. The current process works to cull out the best legal minds, as only another lawyer would know, and in concert with lay members of the Nominating Committee, advance those candidates to the governor for consideration and appointment.
As individual voters, we simply don’t have the requisite legal background to know who would make an effective justice and who wouldn’t. We’re accountants, business owners, farmers, nurses, teachers and engineers. We know what we know. But we don’t know the law. Not to the degree necessary to determine who would serve our state well as a supreme court justice. As to Planned Parenthood weighing in, how could they not speak up for women? The move to change the selection process is a transparent back-door strategy to subvert the will of Kansans who voted resoundingly in 2022 not to ban abortion.
Kris Kobach said the quiet part out loud, as reported in The Wichita Eagle, September 23, 2022. Given the defeat of the abortion ban, his strategy is to amend our constitution, then “slowly and quietly” elect judges to the Kansas Supreme Court who favor banning abortion. Never mind what the voters said. And those same anti-abortion justices he yearns to see on the bench will probably also be inclined to slash funding for public schools.
Stand your ground on August 4. Don’t be duped. Vote NO. Because despite what the television spots say, the only reason to change the process is to bring Kobach’s fever dream of banning abortion to fruition.
Susan Ruder Council Grove