Dear Editor,

The Kansas Legislature has determined that is time to reconsider changing how our Supreme Court justices are to be selected. There will be a constitution amendment on the ballot for the primary election on August 4, 2026 addressing this proposed change.

In 1958 Kansans voted to add to the Kansas Constitution a nominating process to fill vacancies to the Kansas Supreme Court through a nomination process. This process established the Supreme Court Nominating Commission. The Commission reviews applications and conducts public interview of the candidates, then narrows the nominee pool to three names and sends the list to the Governor. The Governor chooses one nominee and appoints that person to the Kansas State Supreme Court. A new appointee must stand for retention at the first general election after appointment and every 6 years thereafter.

The Supreme Court Nominating Commission has nine members, consisting of one lawyer and one non-lawyer from each of the state’s four congressional districts plus one lawyer who serves as the chairperson. The district lawyers are selected by a vote of all the lawyers from that district. The non-lawyers are appointed by the governor. The chairman is selected by a vote from all the lawyers throughout the state. Complicated enough? Complexity is not necessarily bad. It does provide a thorough analysis of each candidate, a public interview and it does provide some input from lawyers, non-lawyers, and a politician (the Governor). Each justice must stand for retention every six years during the general election.

The amendment this August will change this process dramatically. If passed, the Commission will be abolished and the justices will be elected by the general public during the general election, staggered of the next 8 years. The justices will continue to stand for retention every six years during the general election. Simple? Sort of. Real concern does exist regarding the election process. It will introduce political influence and special-interest funding into the judicial selection process which could undermine judicial independence. This political influence and special-interest funding may very well come from groups outside of the State of Kansas. Further, in all likelihood, it will greatly enhance the possibility that all justices will be chosen from the more highly populated areas of the state.

This is not a “check-the-box” issue. All registered voters have a responsibility to understand how this could impact the selection of 7 of the most influential positions in the state.

Jack Willmeth

Seneca