Why is there Controversy Surrounding the Kansas Supreme Court?
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.