kansas-information-network

Why is there Controversy Surrounding the Kansas Supreme Court?

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:56:57 GMT

The Kansas Supreme Court has been the subject of controversy in recent years, a long-running debate that will come to a head in August 2026 when voters decide whether to restore democratic elections or keep the current, bar-controlled method of judicial selection.

Since the late 1950s, Kansas has filled its Supreme Court through a system modeled after the Missouri Plan, a “merit-based” or “bar-controlled”approach, which supporters argue is best intended to keep the judiciary impartial. However, critics argue the system has done the opposite, creating an insulated, unaccountable process that gives control of an entire branch of government to a small group of lawyers instead of Kansas voters.

In the August 2026 election Kansans will vote whether to maintain the bar-controlled method of judicial selection or to restore Kansas’ Supreme Court to its original procedure of voters electing their Supreme Court Justices. The approaching vote has reignited the debate about democratic process versus judicial independence.

Currently Kansas Supreme Court justices nominees apply to a 9-member commission composed of 5 lawyers and 4 individuals appointed by the Governor. The 9-member commission chooses three candidates and presents these three to the Governor. The governor must approve one of the three, and if the governor refuses, then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court makes the selection. An analysis of Supreme Court Methods across the nation shows that Kansas is the only state that has what is called a “bar-controlled commission.”

Where some may say that the bar-controlled nominating committee is an objective and unbiased group, others may say that the bar members have no accountability to the voters, and therefore the majority of the nominating commission, which controls one of the state’s branches of government, operates in a fashion that is not consistent with a representative form of government.

Supporters of the current method, however, argue that the system protects the judiciary from partisan influence and helps ensure that only qualified, experienced candidates are appointed to the bench. This system has been in place since 1958, when voters approved it in response to the controversial Triple Play. (link to triple play section on website)

In practice, the Kansas Supreme Court has issued high-profile rulings regarding redistricting, campaign finance, medical malpractice, capital murder, and social issues.

Opponents of the current system argue that Justices who wield broad influence over state policy should be answerable, at least indirectly, to the electorate. Proposals to shift to a federal-style appointment process, where the governor nominates and the Senate confirms, have circulated for years but have failed to advance.

The 2026 ballot measure marks the first time in over half a centur that voters will have a direct say in whether to keep or change the structure of the state’s Supreme Court.

The debate over structure is deeply intertwined with the Court’s rulings, several of which have drawn sharp criticism both inside and outside of Kansas.

One high profile example of this was in Kansas v. Carr (2016) , in which the Kansas Supreme Court vacated the death sentences of two brothers convicted of a series of brutal Wichita murders, ruling that the pair should have been tried separately. The U.S. The Supreme Court later reversed the decision in an 8–1 vote, chastising the Kansas Court for misapplying constitutional standards. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, criticized the Kansas justices for “demanding more” of sentencing procedures than the Constitution requires.

A similar outcome followed in Kansas v. Garcia (2020) , when the Kansas Supreme Court struck down the state’s use of identity theft laws in cases involving illegal immigrants. The U.S. Supreme Court again reversed the decision, ruling that federal immigration law did not preempt Kansas’s authority to prosecute.

These high-profile reversals caused critics to charge that the Kansas Supreme Court has leaned too far toward judicial activism. The 2026 Constitutional vote is expected to draw national attention as Kansas becomes a test case in the broader debate over how states should select their judges.

Supporters of the proposed change say returning to popular elections would give Kansans a direct voice in shaping the judiciary, restoring accountability to an institution they believe has grown detached from public oversight. Opponents note that they fear that reform will politicize the process. Whichever side prevails, the outcome will define Kansas’ judicial system and have an impact for years to come.

Important to Kansans? The Kansas Speaks Poll

Mon, 12 Jan 2026 00:56:02 GMT

In October, the Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University released their statewide public opinion survey known as the Kansas Speaks poll, which seeks to understand the position of Kansans on a wide variety of quality of political, social, and economic issues. This 2025 poll reflects the responses from 526 participants surveyed between September 26th and October 14th of this year, and gives a snapshot of Kansans’ economic confidence and views of public policy decisions.

Kansas Speaks is an annual, statewide poll conducted for the purpose of measuring the attitude of Kansans towards the current quality of life and governmental operation. Conducted since 2009, this poll has become an effective metric for measuring the shift in public opinion over time. The goal of the Docking Institute is to “facilitate effective public policy decision-making among governmental and nonprofit entities” https://www.fhsu.edu/docking/ and the Kansas Speaks poll is one of their most visible endeavors.

Notable in the survey however, was a lack of polling data regarding the upcoming amendment proposal which would allow Kansans to vote for State Supreme Court Justices. Despite the proximity of the issue, and thus the increased relevance of the judicial structure in advance of the 2026 vote, the survey did not include questions gauging public awareness of the amendment, attitudes toward the current selection process , or preferences for maintaining the current system. This leaves a gap in understanding how Kansans are approaching the decision and underscores the need for additional public opinion research as the state moves closer to a formal debate over judicial reform.

It seems odd that questions regarding the constitutional amendment or the general subject of allowing Kansans to vote on electing judges were not asked. Was this intentional or just a mistake? That being said, respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the Kansas Supreme Court, and the survey found that 35 percent were satisfied, 21 percent were dissatisfied, with the largest category being the neutrals at close to 37 percent.

As Kansas moves toward a very consequential decision in 2026, the Kansas Speaks findings point to a high degree of uncertainty among voters regarding their state’s highest court and the broader judicial system. The trend over the years has shown a consistent plurality of voters are unsure about the Kansas Supreme Court, however next year’s amendment will present voters with a clear decision: whether to restore the election method of State Supreme Court Justices that Kansas employed for the first 100 years of statehood or keep the current “bar-controled” or “merit based” system put in place in the 1950s?

As public opinion polling comes available on this topic and other important topics to Kansas, the Kansas Information Network will be sure to report on the findings.

Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court Steps Down

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:54:39 GMT

The Kansas Supreme Court will soon undergo a leadership transition following Chief Justice Marla Luckert’s decision to step down from her role, marking the end of a tenure that has spanned more than two decades on the state’s highest court. In a video announcement , Luckert expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve Kansans and reflected on her path from a small-town upbringing to the state’s highest court. She emphasized the importance of public service and the example she hoped her career set for young people across Kansas. Although she has stepped down from the role of Chief Justice, she will remain a Justice on the Kansas Supreme Court for a few more weeks until officially resigning at a time she will announce at a later date.

Justice Luckert was appointed by Governor Bill Graves in 2002 and took office in January of 2003. In December of 2019, she succeeded Lawton Nuss to become Chief Justice of Kansas’ highest court. She cites ongoing health concerns following a stroke she suffered in October of 2025 as a central factor in her decision. While noting in her announcement that she is “on a path to recovery” Justice Luckert said she “is not yet able to meet the demands of leading the Kansas Court System” adding that Kansans deserve leadership capable of managing the strenuous schedule of the court. As the Kansas Constitution dictates that the most senior member of the court serve as the Chief Justice, Justice Eric Rosen will take on that role going forward.

Luckert’s departure marks the end of one of the longest tenures on the Kansas Supreme Court in recent history. Appointed in 2002, she served more than two decades on the state’s highest court, and her departure underscores the current, turbulent state of the judiciary in Kansas, given the upcoming constitutional amendment vote. She leaves behind a storied career on the bench, and numerous high profile decisions that have helped shape Kansas. Notable among the rulings made by the Supreme Court during her tenure were Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt (2019), in which Luckert joined a 6–1 majority recognizing that the Kansas Constitution protects a fundamental right to abortion, and subjecting state restrictions to strict scrutiny; State v. Carr (2014), where the court vacated the death sentences of Jonathan and Reginald Carr after finding constitutional and procedural errors in the penalty phase of their trial, a decision later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court; and the court’s involvement in the state’s 2022 redistricting dispute, in which it ultimately upheld the Legislature’s congressional map after reversing a lower court ruling that had found the plan unconstitutional. Luckert also served in the majority in Gannon v. State , a series of decisions holding that the Legislature failed to meet the Kansas Constitution’s requirements for adequate and equitable public-school funding.

Once Justice Luckert formally resigns, the current selection process will begin, in which the Supreme Court Nominating Commission will accept application and screen the candidates, finally presenting their three-person shortlist to Governor Kelly, who has sixty days to make an appointment. Her resignation will give Governor Kelly a fifth opportunity to select a Justice for the Supreme Court, having already selected successors for just months before Kansans will vote on the method of selecting their Supreme Court Justices. With control of the Kansas Supreme Court already the subject of public debate, this development adds new urgency to broader questions about judicial selection methods in Kansas.

Swearing in of the newest Kansas Supreme Court Justice

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 03:17:42 GMT

On November 21st the Kansas Supreme Court convened a short special session to formally swear in Larkin Walsh as the state’s newest justice. The ceremony marked the final step in the process to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Evelyn Z Wilson. This appointment takes place at a time of heightened political tension in regard to the judiciary, as it takes place just months before voters will decide if the state should return to direct election of State Supreme Court Justices or continue forward with a selection commission put in place in the 1950’s.

Walsh’s path to the bench followed the current method of judicial selection referred to as the “Missouri Plan” in which a nine-member commission composed of five attorneys elected by the members of the Kansas Bar Association and four gubernatorial appointees screen applicants and send a list of three finalists to the Governor who selects one. At times the “Missouri Plan” has also been referred to as “merit selection” or “bar-controlled” selection.

Supporters of the current method of selecting judges argue that the commission isolates the judiciary from the noise of partisanship and that attorneys are best qualified to assess a justice's qualifications. Critics argue that the process takes place largely out of public view, leading to the perception that important judicial changes can occur without any real public awareness, lending to the idea that the Kansas Supreme Court is elitist and unaccountable.

Amid the broader debate, the newest member arrives at the Kansas Supreme Court boasting an extensive appellate background. After earning her law degree from the University of Kansas School of Law, Walsh clerked for the US District Court for the District of Kansas, and later served as a research attorney for the former Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier. Her later career shifted into the private sector for firms Stueve Siegel and Hanson, Sharp Law, and Chinnery Evans & Nail, where she handled cases in various fields such as civil rights, labor and employment law, consumer protection, and large-scale class actions, and argued in both state and federal appellate courts.

At her swearing-in ceremony, Walsh emphasized fidelity to the law, humility in judging, and strict impartiality, which is a message consistent with her career focussed heavily on analytical pursuits rather than political ones.

As Kansans prepare for the vote in August of 2026 and whether to keep the Missouri Plan or to restore direct elections, Kansans will get the chance to voice their opinion on whether they think the process is a strength or a liability, and their decision will shape the future of the judiciary in Kansas. If the proposed shift back to popular elections occurs, future elections would take place under much higher visibility and scrutiny than the current system.