Each week during the 2025 Kansas legislative session, we will provide Johnson County lawmakers the opportunity to share their thoughts about what is happening in the state capitol.
Below is a submission from Republican Sen. Mike Thompson, who represents Kansas Senate District 10, covering portions of Bonner Springs, Lake Quivira, Olathe and Shawnee.
Earlier this week, the Post published a Capitol Update from Democratic Rep. Stephanie Sawyer Clayton of Overland Park and has also extended an offer to Republican Rep. Lauren Bohi to submit an update later this week.
The views expressed in each Capitol Update are solely those of the lawmaker.
One of the important issues coming before the committee I chair, the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee — and the Senate as a whole —this legislative session is the reform of the selection process for the Kansas Supreme Court.
Many Kansans think we have a system that’s similar to the federal government, where the chief executive makes an appointment and the Senate confirms that choice. That is not the case.
While that system exists for our Appeals Court, the Kansas Supreme Court selection process uses an undemocratic, unaccountable, secret “nominating commission” that is embedded in our Kansas Constitution. It simply must be fixed.
Here is how the current system works when there is a vacancy:
A nine-member nominating commission convenes. Five of the nine members (a majority) of this commission must be attorneys and they are elected by other attorneys. This commission meets in secret and reviews possible nominees for the Kansas Supreme Court.
Eventually, the commission sends three nominees to the governor, who must pick between the three. If the governor refuses, the Chief Justice selects the nominee.
While the eventual choice is subject to retention elections every six years, no justice has ever not been retained, due to the lack of substantial information being available about the justices, including their core philosophy. Moreover, any vacancy would be filled via the same method.
While other states use a nominating commission, Kansas is the only state in which the majority of that commission consists of attorneys selected by other attorneys. This method stacks the deck against anyone who may have a philosophy that does not conform to that of the prevailing opinions of the attorneys on the nominating commission.
That’s why we need reform. The Kansas Supreme Court should not be an echo chamber of unilateral beliefs but rather a deliberate group of independent thinkers dedicated to crafting opinions based on the constitution.
Twenty-two states — a plurality — use direct elections to select justices for their supreme courts. These states range from red to blue and everything in between. During our committee, we heard testimony from judges who have served under these systems, and they said there is no indication that these courts produce inappropriate rulings.
There is also data to suggest that elected state supreme courts produce higher quality rulings because the justices are accountable to the people.
The Kansas Supreme Court is the most overturned high court in the nation. That fact alone should indicate the need for change.
Some people have advocated for a federal model, and I would vote for that, too. But Kansans have repeatedly indicated in scientific surveys that they want the same rights as those citizens in 22 other states.
That’s why I helped craft SCR 1611, which would provide Kansans with the right to elect our supreme court justices.
We passed SCR 1611 out of committee last week and the bill now advances to the Senate floor.
If the Senate and House both obtain the two-thirds vote necessary for adoption, this proposal would go on the ballot for all Kansans to make their decision known through the election process!
