Proposing a constitutional amendment to provide for direct election of supreme court justices and abolish the supreme court nominating commission.
Summary
SCR 1611 proposes a constitutional amendment to change how Kansas Supreme Court justices are selected. Under the resolution, justices would be elected directly by Kansas voters rather than chosen through the current merit-selection system. The measure also sets staggered election dates for the court’s positions beginning in 2028, with six-year terms thereafter, and provides that vacancies for unexpired terms would be filled by election as provided by law.
The resolution would also abolish the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, which currently screens and forwards nominees to the governor for appointment to fill vacancies. In addition, it would revise constitutional language governing judicial political activity and removal provisions, while preserving impeachment and other discipline/removal mechanisms for judges. The amendment would be submitted to voters at a special election on August 4, 2026, held with the primary election.
Impact
If approved by voters, the measure would substantially rewrite Article 3 of the Kansas Constitution as it relates to the Supreme Court. It would eliminate the nominating commission’s role in filling Supreme Court vacancies, replace gubernatorial appointment from commission nominees with direct election for justices, and establish a new election schedule and ballot structure for the court. The change would affect the state’s judicial selection process, the governor’s appointment authority, the legal status of the nominating commission, and the statutes or laws needed to administer judicial elections and vacancy elections.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have strong support among its backers, as reflected in its passage by the required two-thirds majorities in both chambers. The resolution’s ballot language frames the proposal as giving voters the right to elect Supreme Court justices and emphasizes the current commission’s lawyer-majority composition. At the same time, the votes show meaningful opposition, indicating that the proposal is politically significant and not unanimous. Overall, the sentiment is best characterized as strongly favorable among supporters of judicial elections, but contested among those who prefer the existing merit-based system.
Contention
The main point of contention is the method of selecting Kansas Supreme Court justices: direct partisan or voter election versus the current nominating commission system. Supporters of the resolution favor voter control and argue the commission is too insulated and lawyer-dominated, while opponents are likely concerned about politicizing the judiciary and weakening judicial independence. Another area of concern is the elimination of the nominating commission and the related changes to political activity restrictions and vacancy-filling procedures, which would alter long-standing constitutional safeguards around the court.