Frequently Asked Questions About SCR 1611
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1611: Proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of Supreme Court justices and abolish the Supreme Court nominating commission, which established merit-based selection and retention elections for Supreme Court justices, prioritizing legal qualifications, accountability, and independence that has served Kansans well, since 1958.
Here’s why we believe you should defend it by Voting No on August 4th.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1611 proposes amending the Kansas Constitution to change how Kansas Supreme Court justices are selected.
This amendment would dissolve the merit-based nominating commission, and allow justices to engage in political activities, as well as accept dark money for their campaigns, destroying their inpartiality and creating bias in a legal system that needs less of it, not more.
Set for a vote on August 4, 2026, the resolution offers a choice: keep the existing merit-based appointment process that has served Kansas well since 1958. Or hand our Supreme Court over to special interests, partisanship, and the influence of nation-wide dark money contributions that corrupt judges. We’ve seen these partisan motives play out in other states, and in our own state history, and we must prevent it from happening here ever again.
For more information, please visit the following links:
https://www.kansasappleseed.org/our-courts-are-not-for-sale/
Why should justices be appointed rather than elected?
The appointment process ensures justices are selected based on qualifications and experience, rather than political campaigns or special interests.
Doesn't election increase judicial accountability?
Appointed justices are accountable through rigorous review by a nominating commission, which prioritizes impartiality and competence over political pressures.
How does the appointment process prevent bias?
By focusing on merit, the appointment process reduces the risk of partisanship, allowing justices to rule based on law, not electoral considerations.
Is there transparency in the appointment process?
Yes, the process involves a nominating commission that openly reviews and vets candidates, ensuring qualified and fair-minded individuals are chosen.
What role does the governor play in appointments?
After the nominating commission reviews candidates, the governor makes the final appointment, ensuring a balance between expert evaluation and executive oversight.
How does merit selection protect against dark money?
Without campaigns, justices are shielded from the influence of campaign contributions and special interest spending, maintaining judicial independence.
Doesn't an elected judiciary reflect the will of the people?
The judicial system is about upholding the law impartially. Appointments ensure decisions are based on legal principles, not shifting public opinions.
Are there safeguards against corruption in appointments?
The multi-step nomination and vetting process involves checks and balances, reducing the risk of corruption and ensuring qualified appointments.
Can appointed justices be removed if necessary?
Yes, justices can be removed through established legal procedures if they fail to uphold their duties, maintaining accountability.
What if I disagree with a judge's ruling?
The legal system includes appeals processes to address disagreements, ensuring that rulings are based on law that can be objectively reviewed.
What is the impact of judicial elections in other states?
States with judicial elections often face issues of partisanship and outside influence, which can compromise judicial fairness and integrity.
What power do voters have if there are no elections?
Voters have the power to influence the judiciary through retention elections. After a year of service, judges face a retention vote, allowing citizens to decide if a judge should continue serving.
Don’t see your questions answered above? Want more details about an answer? We want to hear from you! Ask your question in this form, and we’ll add it to our FAQ.