Keeping Politics Out of the Courts: The Dangers of SCR 1611

SCR 1611 seeks to dismantle the merit-based system for selecting Kansas Supreme Court justices and replace it with partisan elections.

SCR states: A PROPOSITION to amend sections 5, 8 and 15 of article 3 of the constitution of the state of Kansas; relating to the supreme court; providing for direct election of justices; abolishing the supreme court nominating commission; permitting justices to make contributions to and hold office in a political party or organization and take part in political campaigns.

Such a change would not serve the interests of justice or the people of Kansas. Instead, it would inject political considerations into our judiciary, undermining the impartiality and independence that are fundamental to a fair legal system.

The judiciary must remain independent and free from political pressure. The current merit-based selection process ensures that our Supreme Court justices are chosen based on their legal competence, experience, and ability to interpret and apply the law—not based on political ideology or campaign popularity. Requiring judges to campaign for office in a partisan election would subject them to the same political forces that influence legislators, eroding public confidence in the courts’ neutrality.

Beyond the risks of political bias, there is also the troubling influence of outside money. Judicial elections across the United States have seen a massive surge in campaign spending, driven by special interest groups and political parties aiming to sway judicial outcomes. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the 2021–2022 election cycle set records with $100.8 million spent on state supreme court races—nearly twice the spending of any prior midterm cycle after adjusting for inflation. More than 45% of that spending came from outside groups, many of which were unaccountable entities with political agendas.

The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election alone attracted $51 million in spending—more than the total amount spent in Kansas Supreme Court retention votes over the last two decades combined. There is no reason to believe Kansas would be immune from these trends. If SCR 1611 passes, our state’s highest court could become another battleground for national political forces, distorting the selection of our judiciary and making justices more beholden to donors than to the law.

The average citizen lacks the legal training necessary to assess a judge’s qualifications. In a partisan election, judicial candidates would be forced to rely on political endorsements, campaign donations, and public opinion polls rather than on their legal expertise. That is a dangerous precedent. Someone’s political ideology—or their ability to raise money—does not make them a good judge. Judges should be selected based on their ability to apply the law fairly and impartially, not on whether they can win a popularity contest.

Kansas has long benefited from a judicial selection system that prioritizes legal merit over political influence. Dismantling this system would weaken our courts, reduce public trust in judicial decisions, and increase the likelihood of judicial rulings being swayed by political pressure rather than legal precedent.