Marina
The Judicial Selection Amendment on Kansas’ August 4, 2026 ballot would dramatically change how Kansas Supreme Court justices get their jobs.
Right now, justices are chosen through a merit-based system: a nine-member nominating commission screens applicants and forwards three finalists to the governor, who appoints one.
If the amendment passes, this system would be scrapped. Instead:
- Justices would run in statewide partisan elections
- The nominating commission would be abolished
- Justices would still serve six-year terms, but vacancies would be filled through elections under rules set by the Kansas Legislature
Supporters, including Attorney General Kris Kobach and many Republican lawmakers, say the change would let “the people, not lawyers in back rooms,” decide who sits on the state’s highest court.
Polling cited by supporters claims about 74% of Kansans prefer direct elections over the current system.
Why Is the Koch Network Involved?
The Koch network (centered around Wichita-based billionaire Charles Koch and groups such as Americans for Prosperity-Kansas) has a long history of backing conservative causes in Kansas — including lower taxes, reduced regulation and limits on abortion rights.
According to recent commentary, the amendment is a top priority for Koch-aligned organisations after a series of election setbacks in Kansas and nationally.
Critics say these groups are now pouring money and messaging into passing the measure, framing it as a way to put “accountability” and “freedom” on the ballot.
How Could Koch Stand to “Gain Big”?
Opponents of the amendment argue that shifting to partisan elections, heavily funded by powerful interests, would give the Koch network a much stronger hand over the Kansas Supreme Court. Their case rests on a few key points:
- Campaign money matters. Statewide judicial races are expensive. Groups with deep pockets, like Koch-backed political networks, could shape who gets elected through heavy ad spending, endorsements and grassroots operations.
- The court has blocked conservative priorities before. The current court has played a major role in school-funding lawsuits and in recognizing abortion rights under the Kansas Constitution — decisions that frustrated many conservative politicians and their allies.
- Future rulings are on the line. Critics warn that a more ideologically aligned court, elected with help from special-interest funding, could shift outcomes on tax policy, education, voting rights, criminal justice and reproductive rights for decades.
Supporters strongly dispute the idea that this is a “Koch takeover.” They argue that voters, not donors, have the final say, and that open elections are more democratic than a commission in which a majority of members are chosen by attorneys.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Item | Current System | If Amendment Passes |
|---|---|---|
| How justices are chosen | Merit selection by nominating commission + governor | Statewide partisan elections for justices |
| Nominating commission | 9 members (5 lawyers elected by attorneys, 4 non-lawyers picked by governor) | Abolished |
| Role of Legislature | Limited in selection process | Sets rules for Supreme Court elections |
| Term length | Six years, with retention elections | Six years, but justices run in competitive elections |
| Election date for amendment | N/A | August 4, 2026 statewide vote |
| Koch-linked groups’ role | Historically active in Kansas politics | Expected to be major funders and advocates on “Yes” side |
| Main concern of critics | Protect judicial independence from partisan pressure | Fear of special-interest capture of the Supreme Court |
Opponents — including retired Kansas Supreme Court justices, civil-rights groups and public-school advocates — say the amendment would turn the court into “just another political branch,” vulnerable to pressure from big donors and partisan campaigns.
They argue that the current system is transparent, livestreamed and intensely vetting-focused, with open interviews for candidates.
Supporters, led by Kris Kobach, many Republican legislators and Koch-aligned organisations, insist that direct elections are about trusting voters.
They claim that letting Kansans choose justices will make the court more accountable, especially on hot-button issues like crime, taxation and education.
The Judicial Selection Amendment is more than a technical tweak to how judges are chosen. It sits at the intersection of judicial independence, big-money politics and the future of Kansas public policy.
For critics, the measure is a roadmap for the Koch network and other powerful donors to “gain big” by reshaping a court that has constrained conservative agendas in the past.
For supporters, it is a long-overdue correction that puts the Kansas Supreme Court firmly in the hands of voters instead of a lawyer-dominated commission.
Whichever side ultimately prevails in August 2026, the outcome will help decide who wields long-term power over Kansas’ schools, taxes, rights and freedoms — and how much influence wealthy political networks will have over the state’s highest court.