Kansas House Bill HB2726

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/26
• Refer: 2/5/26

Caption

Decreasing the number of votes required to not retain a judge of the district court in office from a majority to 40% in judicial districts that have nonpartisan selection of judges and retention elections.

Summary

HB 2726 would change Kansas law governing retention elections for district court judges in judicial districts that use nonpartisan selection. Under current law, a judge is retained unless a majority of voters oppose retention; this bill lowers that threshold so that a judge would be removed if 40% of voters on the question vote against retention. The bill keeps the existing process for filing a declaration of candidacy for retention, placing the question on a separate judicial ballot without party designation, and filling a vacancy if a judge does not file or is not retained. The measure also preserves the rule that a judge who is not retained may not be nominated or appointed again to that office in the same judicial district until four years after the end of the judge’s term. It amends and repeals K.S.A. 20-2908 to reflect the new retention standard and leaves other election laws applicable to these judicial retention questions where consistent with the statute.

Impact

HB 2726 would materially alter the standard for removing district court judges in Kansas retention elections by replacing a majority-vote defeat standard with a 40% anti-retention threshold. That change would make it easier for voters to oust a judge in judicial districts that use nonpartisan selection and retention elections, affecting district judges and district magistrate judges subject to the statute, as well as the Secretary of State and election officials who administer and canvass these elections.

Sentiment

Based on the bill’s caption and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from discussion history. The bill’s framing suggests a reform-minded effort to make judicial retention elections more responsive to voter dissatisfaction, but there is no documented support or opposition in the supplied record.

Contention

The central point of contention is the lowered retention threshold itself. Supporters would likely view the 40% standard as a way to increase accountability and make it easier to remove judges who have lost public confidence. Opponents would likely argue that reducing the threshold could destabilize judicial independence and make judges more vulnerable to organized campaigns or low-turnout election dynamics. No specific stakeholder positions are included in the provided transcript or vote history.