Every registered Kansas voter will have a chance to weigh in on a proposed constitutional amendment that would change to electing state Supreme Court justices.
Early voting is already underway across Kansas. County election offices have begun mailing advance ballots and in-person advance voting has started or will begin in every county by July 28 — although locations and hours vary by county.
A different kind of primary election
Unlike the normal partisan races that appear on primary ballots, the constitutional amendment is open to all registered voters. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, members of the United Kansas Party and unaffiliated voters will all receive the ballot question.
Unaffiliated voters who choose not to join a political party can still vote on the amendment and any nonpartisan races on their ballot.
Unaffiliated voters also have the option of affiliating with a party at their polling place in order to vote in that party's primary. Voters who are already affiliated with a political party, however, cannot change parties at the polls under Kansas law.
For Kansans voting by mail, election officials are emphasizing a significant rule change this year. The state no longer has a three-day grace period for mailed ballots. Advance ballots must arrive at county election offices by 7 p.m. on Election Day to be counted — regardless of when they were postmarked.
Voters casting ballots in person must present an acceptable form of photo ID. People voting by mail must include the required identifying information when requesting an advance ballot.
Polls will be open from at least 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Aug. 4, although polling hours may vary slightly by county.
Kansas Supreme Court amendment
The amendment asks voters whether Kansas should abandon its decades-old merit selection system for Supreme Court justices and instead directly elect them in statewide races.
Kansas has used its current system since the late 1950s after lawmakers overhauled judicial selection following a political scandal.
Now, a nominating commission screens applicants when there’s a vacancy on the court and submits three finalists to the governor, who appoints one justice. Those justices later face retention elections, where voters decide whether they should remain on the court.
Supporters of the amendment argue the current process gives too much influence to attorneys who serve on the nominating commission and not enough to voters.
The change would be the first since 2021 to any state’s supreme court nominating process.
Partisan or impartial?
Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach has said electing justices would make the court more accountable to Kansans. Republican Senate President Ty Masterson, who is also running for governor, has argued the proposal would simply make an already political process more transparent.
"Politics are in the system,” Masterson said during the amendment hearing. “That's the worst kind of politics. It's veiled."
While Masterson and many conservative leaders argue that the selection system is already political, some former justices have spoken out against the change.
Former Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier said her experience goes against Masterson’s narrative.
Beier was initially appointed to the Kansas Court of Appeals by a Republican. After going through the nomination process, Beier was appointed to the Supreme Court by former Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
The screening process by the nominating commission includes vetting nominees’ experience, ethics and even financial records.
“That vetting process is very rigorous and very thorough,” Beier said.
Beier also described the process as transparent with videos of candidate interviews by the commission publicly available.
But others disagree and say the vetting process should be done by voters.
James Franko — president of the right-leaning think tank Kansas Policy Institute — said that retention turnout does not match a direct election.
“Those are overwhelmingly low turnout elections that don't have the same level of engagement as do other higher-profile races,” He said.
The simple yes or no retention elections currently in place have not led to any justice being removed by Kansas voters, which opponents of the amendment argue means the court is doing its job.
The amendment follows years of criticism from Republican lawmakers over several Kansas Supreme Court rulings, particularly decisions requiring increased public school funding and a 2019 ruling that found the Kansas Constitution protects the right to abortion.
This proposal comes after Kansans rejected an amendment in 2022 that said there’s no right to abortion in the state constitution.
Abortion rights advocates say that issue is again at stake and electing justices is another way for abortion opponents to restrict or ban the procedure.
Kobach has openly connected a change to directly elect Supreme Court justices to restricting abortion access.
Many conservatives argue that the change is just giving the electorate an opportunity to vote for justices just like they do with lower level judges in some districts.
“We elect our district judges,” Masterson said during an amendment hearing. “And it has delivered high-quality judges.”
There is concern by former justices that making a change to electing the Supreme Court will also change who wants the job.
Kansas Association of School Boards Assistant Executive Director of Advocacy and Governmental Relations Leah Fliter is worried that if the court becomes more partisan then school funding could suffer.
“The (Kansas) Supreme Court has certainly been a balance, or a backstop for public school funding,” Fliter said.
The Kansas Supreme Court has the power to declare a school funding formula unconstitutional if the formula is deemed inequitable or inadequate.
Cash in the courtroom
Under the current judicial code of conduct, Supreme Court justices do not accept partisan political contributions.
Current law also prohibits justices from contributing to political campaigns.
But that could change.
If the amendment passes, judicial candidates would have to raise money for direct elections, which critics worry would increase political influence on the judiciary.
The concern for some is that Kansas will join other states where judicial elections have become increasingly expensive.
A Supreme Court election in Wisconsin attracted millions of dollars of donations — including money from tech billionaire Elon Musk. The Wisconsin election raised concerns about the potential for monetary interests influencing judicial decisions.
Former Kansas Republican Party Chairman Fred Logan, who opposes the amendment, said campaign fundraising could undermine the judiciary.
"It's just a bad mix,” Logan said during a 2025 amendment hearing. “Fundraising and the judiciary is a disastrous mix."
The Kansas News Service is a collaboration of Kansas Public Radio, KCUR, KMUW and High Plains Public Radio.
Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished by news media at no cost with proper attribution and a link to ksnewsservice.org.