The world’s wealthiest person, Elon Musk, famously spent over $55 million one year ago in an election for a single seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The race shattered spending records, and it was likely just a glimpse into what state judicial races will look like as national political attention on these courts grows. For the last several cycles, outside interest groups have poured more and more money into judicial elections across the country, transforming many of them into to something resembling the most competitive gubernatorial and senate races.
Despite all this, Kansas legislators have put forward a ballot measure that would open the door to Wisconsin-level spending in the state by replacing Kansas’s commission-based appointment system for justices with judicial elections.
Kansas established its current system following a scandal in 1956 involving self-dealing by the governor, lieutenant governor, and chief justice of the state supreme court. In the so-called “triple play,” the sitting governor lost his reelection and then during his lame duck period orchestrated his own appointment to the Kansas Supreme Court by coordinating with the chief justice to both resign, allowing the lieutenant governor to appoint him to the open seat.
Two years later, Kansans amended the state constitution to change how justices reach the bench. While governors still appoint justices, they must choose from candidates vetted by an independent nominating commission composed of non-lawyers and lawyers selected from across the state. Justices then stand in yes-or-no retention elections every six years.
Kansans have selected justices in this manner for nearly seven decades, an approach often referred to as “merit selection” and used by 13 other states. But that will change in August if Kansans approve the state constitutional amendment that would abolish the Kansas Supreme Court nominating commission and require justices to run in competitive elections.
