By Victoria Kline
On August 4, 2026, Kansans will face a choice that goes far beyond a single amendment. It is a choice about who we are as a people, what we believe about self‑government, and whether we still trust the citizens of this state to choose their own leaders.
I believe we do.
I believe we always have.
And I believe it is time — long past time — for Kansans to reclaim our constitutional right to elect the judges who sit on our highest court.
My conviction on this issue was strengthened months ago at a Northeast Johnson County Republican Woman’s luncheon where Attorney General Kris Kobach was answering questions about the work his office had been doing. A woman who had moved from North Carolina raised her hand and said something that struck me deeply.
She said, “In North Carolina, we flipped the Supreme Court once everyone knew what party the judges belonged to.” Kobach nodded and explained that Kansas had patterned the 111‑word amendment on our ballot after North Carolina’s model.¹
That moment crystallized something for me: voters want transparency. Voters want to know who their judges are, what they believe, and how they interpret the law. And voters want — and deserve — the right to choose.
This amendment gives us that right back.
I. How We Got Here: The Triple Play and a System Frozen in 1958
To understand why this amendment matters, we have to go back to 1956–1957, when Kansas experienced a political scandal so notorious it became known as the Triple Play.
Here’s what happened: Governor Fred Hall lost his re‑election bid. ² Chief Justice William Smith resigns (due to ill health) from the Kansas Supreme Court. ³ Hall then resigned as governor. His lieutenant governor, John McCuish, became governor for 11 days. ⁴ McCuish immediately appointed Fred Hall to the Kansas Supreme Court. ⁵ It was legal — but it was wrong. Kansans were furious. In 1958, voters approved a constitutional amendment that created the judicial nominating commission we have today. ⁶
But here’s the problem:
The system we created to solve a 1950s scandal has become a problem for the 2020s.
The 1958 fix was an overcorrection. Instead of preventing political manipulation, it handed control of the judicial selection process to a tiny, unelected group: attorneys.
Apparently, the logic was: “We don’t trust politicians, so let’s give the power to people even fewer Kansans voted for — or ever will.” Brilliant.
And that brings us to today.
II. The Current System: Less Than 1% of Kansans Control an Entire Branch of Government
At a Sunflower Club meeting, Elizabeth Patten, the regional director for Americans for Prosperity with more than twenty years of experience in electoral politics and policy across five states said something that stayed with me:
“Less than 1% of Kansans are attorneys — and they control an entire branch of government.”⁷
She’s right. Kansas has roughly 7,800–8,000 active attorneys — about 0.26% of our population. ⁸ Yet these attorneys elect the majority of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission. ⁹ That commission chooses the finalists the governor must pick from. Regular Kansans have no voice in the process.
Kansas is the only state in America where lawyers control the nominating commission. ¹⁰
It’s like we accidentally clicked “auto‑renew” on a subscription no one remembers signing up for.
If that’s not special‑interest control, what is?
This system has produced a Kansas Supreme Court that is, by Elizabeth’s estimate, 17 points to the left of the Kansas electorate. ¹¹ Whether one agrees with that number or not, the point is clear: the court does not reflect the people.
And it’s not because Kansans chose it that way. It’s because Kansans were never allowed to choose at all.
III. What North Carolina Taught Us: Transparency Works
North Carolina has been electing judges for more than 150 years.¹² Their system is simple:
Supreme Court justices: partisan elections
Court of Appeals judges: partisan elections
Superior Court judges: partisan elections
District Court judges: partisan elections
Every major judge in North Carolina runs with a party label. Voters know exactly who they are voting for — and it works. ¹³
The woman at the luncheon was right: once North Carolinians knew the party affiliation of their judges, they flipped their Supreme Court. ¹⁴ Not because of dark money. Not because of manipulation. But because voters had information.
Attorney General Kobach told us Kansas modeled its amendment after North Carolina’s approach. ¹⁵ That matters.
The amendment replaces 655 words in the Constitution with 111 words. It intentionally avoids over‑constitutionalizing details. Campaign finance rules, judicial canons, and other specifics are left to the legislature — exactly where they belong in a healthy, flexible system of self‑government.
And if you’re like me, you want to see things for yourself.
Here’s the amendment exactly as it will appear:
And the polling data from North Carolina shows something else: when voters know who the judges are, undecided numbers drop and engagement rises.¹⁶
Transparency empowers voters.
Secrecy empowers insiders.
And this amendment prevents another Triple Play.¹⁸
One of the most important things I learned from the Sunflower Club meeting is how carefully this amendment was written.¹⁷ It creates staggered six‑year terms, leaves campaign finance rules to the legislature, leaves judicial canons to the legislature, and keeps the Constitution focused on principles rather than micromanaging details.
This amendment does not lock in partisan rules.
It does not mandate unlimited campaign donations.
It does not constitutionalize details better handled by statute.
It simply restores the right of Kansans to elect their Supreme Court justices — the same right 55 Kansas counties already exercise when electing their local judges. ¹⁹
If 55 counties can do it, the entire state can too.
IV. The Opposition: Those Who Benefit from the Current System
The opposition to this amendment is not mysterious. Elizabeth listed them clearly:
- ACLU
- Kansas Appleseed
- Kansas Democratic Party
- Kansas Values Institute
- Most of the Kansas Bar Association
- Law professors
- Attorneys who currently control the system²⁰
Their message is predictable:
“This is a buy‑a‑judge campaign.” ²¹
But let’s be honest: The only people who “buy” influence under the current system are attorneys who choose the judges they will later argue in front of.
Braden Dreiling- a Kansas native who has served as chief of staff to a member of Congress, worked in the State Treasurer’s Office, and now leads a public affairs and digital strategy firm — put it even more bluntly.”:
“What’s actually happening here is they’re losing control.”²²
That’s why they’re fighting so hard. Not because they fear corruption — but because they fear losing their monopoly.
- They want to keep choosing judges in back rooms.
- They want to keep the public in the dark.
- They want to keep the power they’ve held since 1958.
- This amendment threatens that power. And that is exactly why we need it.
VI. Accountability: Elections Work — Retention Votes Don’t
At the Sunflower Club meeting, Joshua Ney — the elected District Attorney for Jefferson County, and a longtime voice on issues of judicial accountability — made the point even sharper.
“They’re saying voters are too stupid to qualify judicial candidates.” ²³
If the best defense of the current system is that Kansans can’t be trusted, that’s not a defense — that’s a confession. And it is insulting.
Kansans elect: school board members, sheriffs, county attorneys, legislators, and governors
We are trusted to choose leaders in every other branch of government.
Why not the judiciary?
Additionally, Retention elections are not real elections.
They are 70–30 every time. ²⁴
- There is no opponent.
- There is no debate.
- There is no information flow.
As Braden said:
“There’s no incentive in the free market of ideas to get information out to you.” ²⁵
Real elections create accountability and Retention votes create complacency.
And the consequences show: Since 2007, 87% of Kansas Supreme Court decisions reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court were overturned²⁶ Justice Antonin Scalia’s final opinion included a scathing critique of the Kansas Supreme Court²⁷
“But what a state court cannot do is experiment with our Federal Constitution and expect to elude this Court’s review.” This came from Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 (2016).
A Kansas Supreme Court justice attended a fundraiser for a Democratic governor while on the bench²⁸
Another met privately with the Senate president during a pending school finance case²⁹
Under the current system, voters had no way to remove them.
Under the new amendment, voters would.
VII. Kansas Voters Are Independent — And They Can Be Trusted
Joshua Ney reminded us of something important:
Kansas has alternated between Republican and Democratic governors since 1965. ³⁰
We are not a blindly partisan state
- We are thoughtful.
- We are independent.
- We evaluate candidates on their merits.
- We are exactly the kind of electorate that can be trusted with judicial elections.
And ironically, statistically, we trust ourselves more than we trust others.
VIII. Conclusion: It’s Time to Take Back the Bench
When I think back to that luncheon — to the woman from North Carolina, to Kobach’s explanation, to the Sunflower Club’s passionate defense of voter rights — I am reminded of something fundamental:
The power of government comes from the people.
- Not from attorneys.
- Not from special interests.
- Not from back rooms.
- Not from commissions we never voted for.
And as Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves.”
And finally, Kansas Republican Party Chair Danedri Herbert sums this up nicely.
“Kansas’ current judicial selection system is shrouded in the shadows and gives lawyers and special interests outsized influence over the most important questions of law. By contrast, North Carolina’s system of direct elections fosters meaningful public debate about judicial philosophy and produces a court that more accurately reflects the values citizens hold as it navigates the law’s most complex gray areas. A shift to a direct election model would bring the process into the open and allow the public to make the final decision.”
This amendment restores the right Kansans once had and should never have lost. It brings sunlight to a system that has operated in the hidden corridors of government for too long. It gives every Kansan — not just 0.26% of us — a voice in choosing the judges who interpret our laws and shape our future.
On August 4, 2026, I will vote YES to take back the bench.
I will vote YES for transparency.
I will vote YES for accountability.
I will vote YES for Kansas.
And I believe thousands of Kansans will stand with me.
Footnotes:
¹ Sunflower Club transcript, luncheon anecdote. April 11, 2026
² Kansas Reflector, “Kansas Senate president tees up debate…”
³ Kansas Historical Society, “John B. McCuish.”
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Kansas Bar Association, “Judicial Selection.”
⁷ Sunflower Club transcript.
⁸ American Bar Association; Census QuickFacts.
⁹ Kansas Bar Association, “Judicial Selection.”
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ Sunflower Club transcript.
¹² UNC School of Government, History of North Carolina Judicial Elections.
¹³ Ballotpedia, “Judicial Selection in North Carolina.”
¹⁴ North Carolina polling data (image provided).
¹⁵ Sunflower Club transcript.
¹⁶ News & Observer polling table.
¹⁷ Sunflower Club transcript (Braden).
¹⁸ Ibid.
¹⁹ Ibid.
²⁰ Sunflower Club transcript.
²¹ Ibid.
²² Ibid.
²³ Ibid.
²⁴ Ibid.
²⁵ Ibid.
²⁶ Sunflower Club transcript (Elizabeth).
²⁷ SCOTUSBlog summary of Scalia’s final opinion.
²⁸ Sunflower Club transcript (Braden).
28. https://www.c-span.org/clip/radio/user-clip-justice-scalia-questions-whether-the-kansas-supreme-court-reads-scotus-opinions/5196084
²⁹ Ibid.
³⁰ Sunflower Club transcript (Joshua Ney).