A Contested Primary in a Hopeless Race

Two Attorneys from Lawrence are running in the Democratic Primary in the Kansas First Congressional District, and neither of them have the slightest chance of winning in the general election.

Both Colin McRoberts and Lauren Reinhold are great candidates, with strong platforms, who have introduced themselves to my Indivisible chapter in Manhattan, Kansas. 

The table below lists the Democrats and Republicans running in each of the four Kansas Congressional Districts. 

 

 

The Kansas First Congressional District is easily the least competitive congressional district in the state.

In each of the 11 most recent elections in the Kansas First, the Republican candidate has won by more than 35%.

The Kansas First Congressional District, also known as the Big First, is gigantic. 

It stretches from the Kansas-Colorado border to Lawrence, in Eastern Kansas.

The Big First is shown in green on the map below.

Attribution:

By Nebraskan fellow - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=121276590 

It’s impossible for a Democrat to win the Deep Red Big First.

Democrats have run compelling, capable, and hard-working candidates in the Big First in previous elections, and each of them have been crushed in the general election.

Choosing which Democrat to run in the Big First is truly the equivalent of arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

There are competitive congressional races elsewhere, and if you want Democrats to win control of the US House, your efforts should be focused there.

Nevertheless, I live in the Big First, and the Democrats who are running in the district are interesting candidates. 

Just don’t get your hopes up.

And if you’re going to volunteer or donate to Kansas Democrats, focus your attention on races they could actually win.

Both McRoberts and Reinhold oppose cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a federal program that provided foreign aid to countries in need.

John Oliver discussed Trump's cuts to USAID on his program LastWeekTonight.

 

  

 

Colin McRoberts

Colin McRoberts has worked as a lawyer, and a negotiator.

"I worked on some of the most difficult and complex deals, helping Fortune 500 companies, unions, diplomatic teams, and government bodies make better deals under the toughest conditions – exactly what Congress and Kansas need now,” McRoberts wrote on his campaign website.

McRoberts teaches negotiation and business law at the University of Kansas (KU).

In March 2025, McRoberts attended a town hall in Oakley, Kansas, where US Senator Roger Marshall left early after receiving critical comments and tough questions from Kansans.

Oakley is located in Northwest Kansas.

WIBW also covered Marshall’s early departure from the town hall.

Colin McRoberts is a talented public speaker.

This can be seen in the passionate and energetic speech he delivered on March 28 at the No Kings 3 rally, in Manhattan, Kansas, which was hosted by my Indivisible chapter.

McRoberts supports restoring funding for USAID, and restoring scientific funding for the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation.

He supports reversing cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

McRoberts supports amending federal law to automatically cancel presidential tariffs, after one year, unless Congress votes to extend them.

He supports holding the federal government accountable for “incompetence, indecency, and illegality.”

McRoberts supports amending federal law to allow victims sue federal officials who violate their rights.

“We’ve seen what happens when we trust the executive branch to police itself,” he wrote on his campaign website. “When an ICE agent killed Renee Good in Minneapolis, the government immediately declared there would not even be an investigation.”

“An amended Section 1983 would let victims (or their surviving families) sue in civil court, so the government would not be able to shut down investigations and obstruct justice,” he added.

McRoberts discussed his candidacy with the Kansas Reflector.

Lauren Reinhold

As a lawyer, Lauren Reinhold represented low-income Kansans fighting for their housing, consumer, and family rights, according to her campaign website.

Reinhold also advised families, employers, and immigrants on immigration law.

Reinhold worked for the federal government.

She served in the Social Security Administration, where she focused on workforce modernization and employee support.

She also served as an investigator for the National Labor Relations Board.

Lauren Reinhold witnessed firsthand the chaos Trump unleashed at the Social Security Administration (SSA), including through funding cuts initiated by DOGE, an initiative led by Elon Musk. 

“Committed to ensuring government functions well, Lauren planned to continue a long career in federal government administration,” she wrote on her campaign website.

“Unfortunately, her plans changed when DOGE cut SSA programs, slashed people-centered initiatives across the government, and eliminated thousands of jobs within her agency." 

In response, Reinhold resigned from the Social Security Administration, and chose to run for Congress.

“I’m fighting for Kansas, not for big corporations or special interests,” Reinhold wrote on her campaign website. “If anyone in Washington wants to push policies that hurt our farmers, our hospitals, our workers, or our towns, they’ll have to go through me first.” 

Reinhold opposes cuts to SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, and USAID. 

She said cuts to these programs have hurt farmers and families alike.

Reinhold supports rebuilding rural healthcare. 

She believes over-payed CEOs, and their corporations, should pay higher taxes.

Reinhold supports immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the US, according to her campaign website.

“Drawing on her experience as an immigration attorney, Lauren will advocate for long-overdue common-sense immigration reform that addresses our need for a stable agricultural workforce and family unity while securing the border and making sure our deportation policies are fair and humane,” Reinhold wrote.

“In Congress, Lauren will work for legislation that provides a fair path to citizenship for people who have been contributing to our society and our communities," Reinhold continued. 

"She will bring to the table her government and legal background to demand a fair and efficient immigration court process staffed by qualified judges, focusing on policies that treat immigrant families and communities with dignity and respect.”

Lauren Reinhold introduced herself to Indivisible Manhattan on April 25, during the Little Apple Pride Celebration, where we hosted a booth for our organization.

You can learn more about Lauren Reinhold and Colin McRoberts from the Kansas Reflector.

My Endorsement

Democrats have no chance of winning the Kansas First Congressional District.

Democrats would have their best performance in the Big First in more than 20 years, if they managed to narrow the Republican margin of victory to under 35%.

Both Colin McRoberts and Lauren Reinhold are quality candidates with strong platforms.

Both candidates have introduced themselves to my Indivisible chapter in Manhattan, Kansas.

McRoberts uses slightly sharper rhetoric to criticize the Trump administration.

McRoberts is also an amazing orator who delivers great speeches.

I plan to vote for Colin McRoberts, and I encourage others to do so as well.

It would be entertaining to watch McRoberts campaign in the general election, even though he has no chance to actually win.

My endorsements are preliminary, and subject to change, based on subsequent developments.

But I don’t believe my endorsement in this race will likely change.

I'm glad that both McRoberts and Reinhold are running for Congress.

Democrats should try to run candidates in every race, even in races they don’t have a chance to win.

I would love to have either McRoberts or Reinhold represent me in Congress, rather than Tracey Mann (R), but if history is any guide, that’s definitely not going to happen.

If you appreciate my coverage of the 2026 Kansas elections, you can support my work on Patreon.

The Kansas Democratic Senate Primary

 

There are 11 Democrats running for the US Senate in Kansas.

Rather than cover all 11 candidates, I will instead focus on the two leading candidates, Adam Hamilton and Christy Davis.

 

 

 

Before we discuss these candidates, we need a quick reality check.

It’s effectively impossible for a Democratic or Independent candidate to win a US Senate election in Kansas.

Republicans have won each of the 7 most recent US Senate elections in Kansas by more than 10%.

The last time Kansas elected a Democrat to the US Senate was in 1932, when the state elected George McGill.

That was so long ago, the picture we have for McGill is in black-and-white.

Kansas has been represented exclusively by Republicans in the US Senate for the past 87 years.

Republicans face a challenging political environment in 2026, because of Trump’s constant abuses of power and mismanagement of the economy.

Nevertheless, the political environment for Republicans in 2026 isn’t as bad as it was for Republicans during the height of the Great Depression, which is what it would take for Kansas to elect a Democrat to the US Senate.

Hamilton, Davis lead the pack

11 Democrats and 2 Republicans are running in the US Senate election in Kansas.

Two polls of likely Democratic primary voters found Adam Hamilton and Christy Davis are the leading candidates in the crowded field.

Hamilton sponsored a poll of 600 likely voters, which was conducted by the polling agency GBAO from July 13-16.

In the poll, Adam Hamilton led by 17%.

Adam Hamilton received 30%, Christy Davis received 13%, and Noah Taylor received 10%.

All other candidates received 5% or less.

An earlier poll also found Adam Hamilton and Christy Davis were the leading candidates in the Democratic Primary.

The poll was conducted by Change Research on behalf of Civic Clarity, a nonprofit that operates the Capitol Bee, a Kansas news organization.

The poll surveyed 1,022 likely Kansas Democratic Primary voters from June 11-15, and it was not commissioned by a candidate in the race.

Results were weighted to the expected primary electorate based on age, gender, race and ethnicity, education, and region.

The poll asked respondents who they would vote for in the Democratic Primary for US Senate, if the election were held today.

64% weren’t sure, 16% supported Adam Hamilton, 7% supported Christy Davis, 5% supported Patrick Schmidt, and all other candidates received 4% or less.

Damon Anderson, Jason Hart, Kevin Latz, and Michael Soetaert were not included as options in the poll, according to a Methodology document that describes how the poll’s questions were worded.

Respondents who weren’t sure were asked who they would vote for, if they had to choose.

The totals below include respondents who supported a candidate in the first question, and undecided respondents who indicated support for a candidate in the second question.

55% still weren’t sure, 18% supported Adam Hamilton, 10% supported Christy Davis, 7% supported Patrick Schmidt, and all other candidates received 4% or less.

Therefore, in the earlier Change Research poll from June, Hamilton led by 8%.

I encourage you to read the article the Capitol Bee wrote about their poll.

Adam Hamilton

Adam Hamilton is the Pastor of the Church of the Resurrection, the largest United Methodist church in the United States, which has about 24,000 members across nine locations in the Kansas City area.

Hamilton supports expanding Medicare drug price negotiation, reversing cuts to Medicaid, restoring Affordable Care Act subsidies, and protecting rural hospitals.

He opposes tariffs, wants to create a tax credit for first time home buyers, and wants to ban Wall Street investors from buying single family homes.

He wants to require data centers to pay their fair share of electricity costs, expand Medicare to cover vision and dental, and fight elder fraud and scams.

That sounds like a great platform to me.

Sometimes, Hamilton uses what I consider to be empty rhetoric, like this bland explanation for why he is running for Senate, which appears on the homepage of his campaign website.

“Adam is running for Senate because he believes we need to stop the chaos and corruption in Washington by actually listening, and bringing people together to solve problems. He isn’t a career politician; he’s a Kansan who believes we are better when we work together.”

Other times, Hamilton can sound like he actually has something to say.

For example, here is a quote that appears in an ad where Hamilton discusses cost-of-living concerns.

“America is more than a place. It’s an idea that all are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” Hamilton says in the ad, according to the Kansas Reflector.

“Those rights exist not just for the wealthy few, but for all. Our leaders seem to have forgotten that and instead created a democracy that’s for sale to the highest bidder.”

A Political Liability

The Kansas Reflector reported on a story that could prove to be a political liability for Adam Hamilton, if he wins the Democratic nomination.

Scott Preston Moore, a former church volunteer, sexually molested teenage boys in 2005 at a youth camp retreat hosted by the Church of the Resurrection, which Hamilton founded.

The Kansas Reflector examined court documents from criminal cases against Moore, which formed the basis of its reporting on the story.

The Reflector cites an appellate court decision that said camp leaders were “dismissive” of the boys’ claims that they had been molested.

The Reflector said court records indicated church leaders didn’t initially report the incident to law enforcement or social services.

In 2006, church leaders alerted law enforcement and banned Moore from interacting with youth or vulnerable adults, after Moore entered campers’ rooms at night.

According to the Reflector, court records didn’t indicate any sexual molestation took place at the camp in 2006.

The Reflector discussed how the church changed its policies following these events.

“The church reevaluated its policies to better screen and train staff and volunteers, implementing a Safe Gatherings program, which requires at least two adults to supervise unrelated children and mandates immediate reporting of law, policy, or standards violations,” the Reflector reported.

“Nancy Brown, a former state legislator who served in the ’80s and ’90s and died in 2020, was one of the church leaders who investigated the boys’ 2005 reports. She developed a curriculum for the church to protect youths and vulnerable adults through a mandatory certification that eventually expanded, becoming the Safe Gatherings program, which is used in more than 10,000 organizations in 42 states.”

I believe this story poses a political liability for Adam Hamilton in the general election.

Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, the incumbent in the race, and his allies, will likely argue Hamilton failed to protect children from sexual abuse.

When I try to convince people to vote against Roger Marshall, I would prefer not to have to respond to this argument against Hamilton.

Christy Davis

Christy Davis served as the Kansas Director for Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture.

Davis lives in Cottonwood Falls, in Chase County, in eastern Kansas. 

Davis supports funding healthcare and public schools, and reforming immigration policies to provide a pathway to citizenship while ending immigration practices that terrorize families. 

The platform on Davis’s campaign website is short, and not very detailed.

“I’m Christy Cauble Davis and I'm running for US Senate because hard-working Kansans deserve a proven leader who shows up and works for them,” Davis wrote on her website.

“As a business owner, advocate, and public servant, I have generated billions of dollars of impact on the Kansas economy. As Kansas Director for USDA Rural Development, I oversaw major investments in business, infrastructure, housing, and healthcare projects in our state while also leading a nationwide effort to cut red tape.”

Christy Davis and Patrick Schmidt, two Democrats running for the US Senate in Kansas, have both delivered speeches at No Kings rallies hosted by Indivisible Manhattan, an organization where I am an active member.

Patrick Schmidt delivered a speech at our No Kings 3 rally.

Christy Davis delivered a speech at our No Kings 2 rally, which I watched, but did not record. I was impressed by Davis’s speech.

Christy Davis also stopped by one of our smaller rallies to talk to us.

Davis’s in-person campaigning is considerably more impressive than her campaign’s online presence.

Adam Hamilton has not visited our Indivisible chapter in Manhattan, Kansas.

Christy Davis has been campaigning for the Senate seat for considerably longer than Adam Hamilton.

Davis launched her campaign in August 2025.

Hamilton launched his campaign in April 2026.

Davis discussed her campaign in an interview with the Kansas Reflector.

Campaign Fundraising

Adam Hamilton has raised a lot of money for his campaign, since it was launched three months ago.

The following numbers represent the amount the candidates have raised from 2021 to 2026, based on information published by the Federal Election Commission.

Incumbent Roger Marshall (R) has raised $6.1 million.

Adam Hamilton (D) has raised $3.7 million dollars.

Christy Davis (D) has raised $194,000, considerably less than Marshall or Hamilton. 

 

I have raised money for Davis's campaign. 

I raised $57.16 for Christy Davis through the Democratic Victory Fund and Sunflower Democrats. 

But fundraising alone isn’t enough for a Democrat to win a US Senate election in Kansas.

Barbara Bollier (D) ran against Roger Marshall in 2020.

Bollier raised more in a single quarter than any candidate in Kansas history, but Marshall still won the general election by 11.4%. 

I believe Barbara Bollier was a stronger candidate than either Hamilton or Davis, and she still lost by more than 10%.

Michael Soetaert

Michael Soetart ran in the Republican Primary in the Kansas First Congressional District in 2020.

In a campaign email, Soetaert said he would likely be the next Speaker of the House if he was elected to Congress.

Soetaert called on Congress to dismiss, vacate, and expunge the Congressional Record of Trump’s first impeachment.

This year, Michael Soetaert is running as a Democrat in the US Senate Primary.

Discussing the Candidates

In all honesty, Democrats have no chance to win a US Senate election in Kansas.

Democrats might be able to make Republicans spend a lot of money on the US Senate election in Kansas, which Republicans won’t be able to spend on more competitive Senate elections, elsewhere.

Democrats also might reduce the Republican the margin of victory in the Senate race to less than 10%.

As far as I’m concerned, these are some paltry consolation prizes. 

But let’s suspend our disbelief, and imagine a scenario where a Democrat actually wins a US Senate election in Kansas.

If that were to happen, Democrats would need everything to break in their favor.

That would include having an amazing top-tier candidate.

Democrats don’t have that this year.

Democrats had the perfect candidate when Barbara Bollier ran in 2020, and she still lost to Roger Marshall in the general election by 11.4%.

Adam Hamilton was late to adopt a policy platform.

But now he has one, and it’s really good.

Hamilton’s platform is considerably more detailed than Davis’s.

Nevertheless, in 2005, a church volunteer sexually molested teenage boys at a camp organized by Hamilton’s church, which he founded, and where he serves lead pastor.

Afterward, the church changed its policies to prevent similar crimes from happening in the future.

I will happily vote for Adam Hamilton in the general election, if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

But I believe Roger Marshall, and allied groups that will spend money in the race, will be able to make this story into a serious political liability for Hamilton.

And Democrats would need everything to break in their favor to have a chance of winning a US Senate election in Kansas.

I really like Christy Davis, but her campaign’s online presence needs a lot of work.

And she needs a more detailed policy platform than she currently has.

Christy Davis has my preliminary endorsement in the Democratic Primary in the US Senate election in Kansas.

My endorsements are preliminary, and subject to change, based on subsequent developments.

But I imagine my endorsement in this race will likely remain the same.

Even if you don’t vote for Christy Davis, please make sure you vote for someone other than Michael Soetaert in the primary, to ensure he doesn’t win the nomination.

I don’t believe either Adam Hamilton or Christy Davis have what it takes to win the general election.

Hamilton is on track to win the Democratic Primary, and lose the general election.

Many Democrats will get their hopes up about defeating Republican Senator Roger Marshall, before having those hopes crushed by the ultimate outcome of the race. 

There are a lot of competitive races in Kansas where Democrats have a real chance of winning.

In the primary, we can defeat the proposed constitutional amendment, and protect the Kansas Supreme Court from the influence of large campaign donors.

In the general election, Democrats have a real chance to win the Governor’s race, and defeat Kris Kobach in the Attorney General's race.

With so many key races for the legislature decided by narrow margins, Democrats could break the Republican Supermajority in the Kansas House, if they work really hard to make it happen.

Democrats could also flip a seat on the Kansas Board of Education, in a district located in Johnson and Miami counties.

Just because Democrats don’t really have a chance to win the US Senate race, they could have a great general election in other, more competitive races. 

If you would like to make that a reality, consider donating to Sunflower Democrats, a fund I created to raise money for Kansas Democrats running in important and competitive races.

And if you found this article useful, consider supporting Meticulous Musings on Patreon. 

Who are the Democrats running for Kansas Governor?

 

Three Democrats, Cindy Holscher, Ethan Corson, and Curt Skoog, are running for Kansas Governor

Cindy Holscher and Ethan Corson are both State Senators in the Kansas Legislature.

Curt Skoog is the Mayor of Overland Park.

Incumbent Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly is term-limited an ineligible to run for reelection.

This article will discuss the Democrats running for Kansas Governor and their platforms.

But before we examine the differences between the candidates, let’s discuss some of the things they have in common.

Cindy Holscher, Ethan Corson, and Curt Skoog all live in Johnson County, Kansas.

Cindy Holscher and Curt Skoog live in Overland Park.

Ethan Corson lives in Fairway.

In 2025, Johnson County was the largest county in Kansas, by population.

According to data from the US Census, 21.4% of Kansas residents lived in Johnson County in 2025.

That means more than 1 in 5 Kansans lived in Johnson County, last year.

Johnson County is located in northeastern Kansas, along the Kansas-Missouri border.

None of the candidates running for governor have introduced themselves to the Indivisible chapter in Manhattan, Kansas, where I am an active member.

Some candidates, running for other positions, have spoken at our No Kings rallies and visited us at other events.

Cindy Holscher, Ethan Corson, and Curt Skoog all support expanding Medicaid.

Kansas is one of only 10 states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which is also known as Obamacare.

Here is a map showing which states have and haven’t expanded Medicaid, which was created by KFF, a nonprofit that covers healthcare policy.

I discussed the debate surrounding Medicaid Expansion in Kansas, and previous attempts to expand the state’s medicaid program, in an article I wrote in 2022.

Holscher takes the lead

A poll of likely Democratic primary voters found Cindy Holscher is the leading candidate in Democratic Primary for Kansas governor.

The poll asked respondents who they would vote for in the Democratic Primary for Kansas governor, if the election were held today.

55% weren’t sure, 31% supported Holscher, 8% supported Corson, and 5% supported Skoog.

If respondents weren’t sure, they were asked who they would vote for, if they had to choose.

The totals below include respondents who supported a candidate in the first question, and undecided respondents who indicated support for a candidate in the second question.

44% still weren't sure, 37% supported Holscher, 10% supported Corson, 7% supported Skoog, and 2% said they would not vote. 

Holscher had a strong lead over the other candidates, but it’s worth keeping in mind that 44% of likely voters were undecided in who they would vote for, and weren’t leaning toward a particular candidate.

The poll was conducted by Change Research on behalf of Civic Clarity, a nonprofit that operates the Capitol Bee, a Kansas news organization.

The poll surveyed 1,022 likely Kansas Democratic Primary voters from June 11-15, and it was not commissioned by a candidate in the race.

Results were weighted to the expected primary electorate based on age, gender, race and ethnicity, education, and region.

I recommend reading the detailed article that the Capitol Bee wrote about the results of their poll.

This table shows candidates running for governor, as well as candidates running in other statewide elections in Kansas.

Elections for Governor in Kansas are highly competitive.

The three most recent Kansas Governor elections were each decided by less than 6%.

In a previous article, I compared the competitiveness of statewide elections in Kansas for various positions. 

Beginning in 1974, Kansas governors have been elected to four-year terms.

Prior to 1974, Kansas governors were elected to two-year terms.

Since 1974, no political party has held the office of Kansas governor for more than two consecutive terms.

Laura Kelly, a Democrat, was elected governor in 2018, and she was reelected in 2022.

This means Kansas will likely elect a Republican governor in 2026.

But just because no political party has held the office of Kansas governor for more than two consecutive terms, in the past 50 years, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

It just means it hasn’t happened yet.

Considering Trump’s constant abuses of power and mismanagement of the economy, Democrats will likely do well in 2026.

It would take a political environment, like the one we see today, for Democrats to break historical precedent, and win a Kansas governor’s race, even though the state has had a Democratic governor for the previous two terms.

The Cook Political Report considers the Kansas Governor’s Race to Lean Republican.

Cindy Holscher

Cindy Holscher has served in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature.

Holscher was first elected to the Kansas House in 2016, and she was reelected in 2018.

Holscher was first elected to the Kansas Senate in 2020, and she was reelected in 2024. 

 

Holscher represented Dist. 16, located in Johnson County, in the Kansas House.

Holscher represents Dist. 8, located in Johnson County, in the Kansas Senate.

On her campaign website, Cindy Holscher discussed the role she played in the repeal of the Brownback income tax cuts, which devastated the Kansas Budget.

Holscher wants to increase the state minimum wage to $16 an hour, fully fund special education, and provide free school lunches for all students.

Holscher wants to legalize marijuana for both recreational and medical purposes.

Holscher wants to eliminate taxes on diapers and feminine hygiene products.

Holscher also wants to create an independent panel to oversee redistricting, and prohibit mid-decade redistricting.

On her campaign website, Holscher said she will fight for all Kansans.

“Too many Kansans are working hard and still falling behind,” she said.

“Instead of standing up for Kansans, extremist politicians are pushing dangerous policies that hurt our families and divide our communities. I’m different. I’m running for Governor to fight for all Kansans, not the special interests who are hurting our families. I will fight for our kids, our seniors, our veterans, and our farmers.”

Former Gov. John Carlin and former Lt. Gov. Lynn Rogers have endorsed Cindy Holscher.

Cindy Holscher has chosen KC Ohaebosim as her running mate.

Ohaebosim is pronounced “Oh-HOB-oh-sum”.

KC Ohaebosim represents Dist. 89 in the Kansas House.

Dist. 89 includes parts of Wichita and Bel Aire, in Sedgwick County.

Ohaebosim was first elected to the Kansas House in 2016.

“Ohaebosim has earned national recognition for his legislative leadership, including being named Regional Legislator of the Year by the National Black Caucus of State Legislators in both 2022 and 2025,” Holscher’s campaign website states.

“As a state representative, Ohaebosim voted to end the disastrous Brownback tax experiment, strengthen civil rights protections, and support policies aimed at lowering costs for working families.”

Ethan Corson

Ethan Corson represents Dist. 7, located in Johnson County, in the Kansas Senate.

Corson was first elected to the Kansas Senate in 2020. He was reelected in 2024.

Ethan Corson worked for the US Department of Commerce during the Obama Administration.

On his campaign website, Corson said he opened access to international markets for American producers, including Kansas farmers, while working for the Commerce Department.

Corson supports fully funding special education, and raising pay and providing better retirement plans for teachers.

Corson promises to veto any bill that funds private schools using public dollars.

Corson supports investing in community colleges, technical colleges, and apprenticeships.

Corson supports investing in infrastructure.

Corson said he will stand up to the federal government and the presence of ICE in Kansas, which he said is causing chaos in the state.

Corson wants to strengthen ethics rules, reduce conflicts of interest, and curb the influence of dark money in state government.

On his campaign website, Ethan Corson wrote that he will fight for the next generation of Kansans, so they build a life in the state.

“As a lifelong Kansan, Ethan Corson was raised with Kansas values: work hard, give back, and always keep your word,” he wrote.

“That’s why Ethan has fought to protect our rights, fund public schools, and lower costs for working families. Ethan is running for Governor to fight for Kansans and make sure the next generation can build a life right here at home.”

Gov. Laura Kelly, former Gov. Kathleen Sebilius, and Lt. Gov. David Toland have endorsed Ethan Corson.

Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes has endorsed Ethan Corson as well.

Ethan Corson chose Renee Duxler as his running mate.

Renee Duxler spent most of her career as a social worker in Wichita supporting children with developmental disabilities, survivors of domestic violence, hospice patients, and families navigating healthcare challenges.

Duxler currently lives in Salina, where she has served as the President and CEO of the Salina Area Chamber of Commerce.

Ethan Corson accepted a $1,000 donation to his 2024 state senate campaign from CoreCivic, a private prison company that operates a prison in Leavenworth.

Cindy Holscher has criticized Corson for accepting the donation.

Curt Skoog

Curt Skoog is the Mayor of Overland Park, a city in Johnson County.

Skoog was first elected to the Overland Park City Council in 2005, and he has served as Mayor since 2021.

Skoog wants to create incentives for healthcare providers to practice in every part of the state, support biomedical innovation in mid-size and major cities, and preserve full-service hospitals and care in rural communities.

Skoog wants to support sustainable farming.

Skoog says he supports streamlining regulation, where it makes sense, so small businesses can start and grow.

Curt Skoog chose Jen Bacani McKenny as his running mate.

McKenny is a doctor in her hometown of Fredonia, a small town in Wilson County, located in southeast Kansas.

McKenny is the Wilson County Health Officer and the Fredonia City Health Officer, and she has served on the USD 484 School Board.

"Mayor Curt Skoog and Dr. Jen Bacani McKenney work every single day to help the people they serve,” according to their campaign website.

"At City Halls and the hospitals across Kansas, there’s no time for culture wars or political games – just a focus on what actually matters most. That’s how government should work and that’s exactly why Curt is running for Kansas Governor.”

Curt Skoog is a relative newcomer to the Kansas Governor’s race.

By comparison, both Cindy Holscher and Ethan Corson have been campaigning for about a year.

Cindy Holscher launched her campaign in June 2025.

Ethan Corson launched his campaign in July 2025.

Curt Skoog launched his campaign on June 1, 2026, the filing deadline to run in the race.

Comparing the candidates

All else being equal, I believe candidates for important statewide positions, like governor or senator, should begin their campaigns early, rather than waiting until the last possible second.

For me, that’s pretty much a knockout blow against Curt Skoog.

If Skoog had a much stronger platform than any of the other Democratic candidates, I might be able to overlook his late entrance into the race.

But I don’t believe that to be the case.

Of the three candidates, I find Skoog’s platform to be the weakest.

All else being equal, when choosing a governor, I prefer a Democrat with experience in the legislature, to a mayor who hasn’t participated in politics at the state level.

That’s another blow against Skoog.

Cindy Holscher and Ethan Corson are incredibly similar politicians.

I would be very happy if either of them won the primary, and overjoyed if either of them won the general election.

By my reckoning, Holscher has the better platform, and Corson has the better endorsements.

In particular, I appreciate Holscher’s support for raising the minimum wage to $16 an hour, providing free school lunches for all students, and creating an independent panel for redistricting.

I dislike that Ethan Corson accepted a campaign donation, during a previous election, from a private prison company.

I believe private prisons shouldn’t exist. They create a financial incentive to imprison more people, which can drive these companies to exert harmful political pressures on elected officials.

If Cindy Holscher weren't running, I would happily vote for Ethan Corson in the primary.

I don’t consider a campaign contribution from a private prison company to be a large problem.

But when deciding between two similar candidates, small differences can be decisive.

Based on the strength of Holscher’s platform, and Corson’s previous acceptance of a campaign contribution from a private prison company, Cindy Holscher is my choice in the Democratic Primary.

So, let’s rank the three candidates.

Cindy Holscher is my top choice, followed by Ethan Corson, with Curt Skoog in last.

But I would happily vote for any of them in the general election, should they win the Democratic Primary.

As I said in my article about the Democrats running for Kansas Secretary of State, my endorsements are preliminary, and subject to change based on subsequent developments.

That being said, I don’t believe my endorsement in the Democratic Primary for Kansas Governor is likely to change.

Postscript: KCUR, a public radio station in Kansas City, interviewed Cindy Holscher, Ethan Corson, and Curt Skoog in front of a live audience at the Overland Park Farmers Market.

This is arguably the most NPR thing that has ever happened.

The candidates discussed their positions on data centers, property taxes, the Kansas budget, and marijuana. 

 

Protect the Kansas Supreme Court – Vote No on Aug. 4

 

Next month, Kansas voters will decide how the state will select members of the Kansas Supreme Court, going forward.

A proposed constitutional amendment would replace the state’s current merit-based system, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, with direct elections for members of the Kansas Supreme Court. 

Voters will decide whether to adopt or reject the proposed state constitutional amendment during the Kansas Primary on Tuesday, Aug. 4.

I encourage voters to reject the proposed constitutional amendment and keep the current system in place. 

Whether or not you find my arguments persuasive, I hope this editorial helps you understand the significance, and potential consequences, of this important decision.

The Current System

There are seven positions on the Kansas Supreme Court.

Once a vacancy arises, lawyers and judges who would like to serve on the court submit applications to the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission.

The Commission reviews the applications, and interviews and vets candidates who are interested in the job.

The Commission selects three nominees, and the Governor appoints one of those three candidates to serve on the Kansas Supreme Court.

After their first year on the court, a new Justice will run in an unopposed retention election, where voters will decide whether or not the Justice should continue to serve on the court.

If the public chooses to retain the Justice, the Justice will run in subsequent retention elections every six years.

The Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission is composed of five attorneys and four members appointed by the governor.

The five attorneys on the Commission are elected by members of the Kansas Bar Association. One is elected in each of the four Kansas congressional districts, and the Chairman of the Commission is selected in a statewide election.

The four members of the Commission appointed by the governor are non-lawyers, and one is selected from each Kansas congressional district.

The current merit-based selection process was created by a state constitutional amendment adopted by Kansas voters in 1958.

This process was used to appoint Larkin Walsh to the Kansas Supreme Court in 2025.

This process was used to fill another vacancy on the court this year.

In May, the Commission chose three finalists for the position.

On July 13, Gov. Laura Kelly (D) appointed Johnson County District Court Judge K. Christopher Jayaram to the Kansas Supreme Court.

You can watch the Commission interview candidates for the Kansas Supreme Court on YouTube.

 

Caption: The Seal of the Kansas Supreme Court features scales, a common symbol in legal imagery. 

A Republican-Backed Amendment

Last year, Republicans in the Kansas Legislature voted to advance a proposed constitutional amendment that would replace the current merit-based process for selecting members of the Kansas Supreme Court, with direct elections.

To amend the Kansas Constitution, an amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the members of both chambers of the Kansas Legislature and by a majority of voters.

Republicans hold two-thirds supermajorities in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature.

The constitutional amendment received the exact number of votes needed in both chambers, and only Republicans voted in favor of the amendment.

The Kansas Senate approved the constitutional amendment on March 6, 2025.

There are 40 members of the Kansas Senate.

A proposal must receive 27 votes to achieve a two-thirds majority in the Kansas Senate.

27 Senators voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, and 13 voted against.

27 Republicans voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, and 4 Republicans voted against.

The Senate Republicans who voted against the amendment were Mike Argabright, Elaine Bowers, William Clifford, and Brenda Dietrich.

All 9 Democrats in the Kansas Senate voted against the constitutional amendment.

The Kansas House approved the constitutional amendment on March 19, 2025.

There are 125 members of the Kansas House.

A proposal must receive 84 votes to achieve a two-thirds majority in the Kansas House.

84 members of the Kansas House voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, 40 voted against, and 1 was absent.

84 Republicans voted in favor of the amendment, and 4 Republicans voted against.

The House Republicans who voted against the constitutional amendment were Jesse Borjon, Angel Roeser, Mark Schreiber, and Sean Willcott.

36 Democrats voted against the constitutional amendment, and 1 Democrat, Louis Ruiz, was absent.

Kansas voters will vote on the proposed constitutional amendment during the Kansas Primary on Tuesday, Aug. 4.

If a majority votes in favor of the amendment by voting yes, the current system for appointing Kansas Supreme Court Justices would be replaced by direct elections.

If a majority votes against the amendment by voting no, the current system for appointing Kansas Supreme Court Justices will remain in place.

Next, let’s take a look at what the proposed system for direct elections to the Kansas Supreme Court would like like.

The Proposed System

If voters approve the proposed constitutional amendment, Kansas Supreme Court Justices would be directly elected.

Multiple candidates could run for the same position on the court.

Kansas Supreme Court Justices would be elected to six-year terms.

Candidates for the Kansas Supreme Court would raise money and campaign for office in the same way as candidates running to be governor, senator, or a member of the Kansas Legislature.

Under the proposed system, the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission would be abolished.  

Initial elections for the seven positions on the Kansas Supreme Court would be staggered, so not all seven seats would appear on the ballot at once.

Three positions would be up for election in 2028.

Two positions would be up for election in 2030.

Two positions would be up for election in 2032.

Each position would then be up for election at the end of its six-year term.

According to the proposed amendment, the rules that would govern elections to the Kansas Supreme Court, and which positions would be up for election in which year, will be, “provided by law.”

In practice, this means the Republican Supermajority in the Kansas Legislature would determine these matters, if voters approve the amendment.

Partisan vs. Nonpartisan elections

If voters approve the amendment, one of the unanswered questions that would be answered by the Kansas Legislature, is whether elections for the Kansas Supreme Court would be partisan or nonpartisan elections.

In partisan elections, candidates run as Democrats or Republicans, alongside a party label on the ballot.

In nonpartisan elections, candidates don’t run as Democrats or Republicans, and their names are not accompanied by a party label on the ballot.

If Republicans in the Legislature want to maximize the chances that their preferred candidates are elected, they could decide that elections for the Kansas Supreme Court will be partisan.

Earlier this year, in “How competitive is Kansas?”, I discussed how often Republicans and Democrats win statewide Kansas elections for various positions, based on past election results.

For almost all positions, Republicans regularly outperform Democrats in statewide Kansas elections, with the exception of elections for governor, where Democrats and Republicans are fairly evenly matched.

But what would nonpartisan elections for the Kansas Supreme Court look like?

I closely watched the nonpartisan elections for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2023, 2025, and 2026.

The elections in 2023 and 2025 determined whether conservatives or liberals would hold a majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and they attracted significant national attention.

The general elections in these three races each featured two candidates.

While these elections were technically nonpartisan, one candidate always aligned with and was supported by Democrats, and the other candidate always aligned with and was supported by Republicans.

So while these were technically nonpartisan elections, they were in practice elections between Democratic and Republican candidates, although these designations did not appear next to the names of the candidates on the ballot.

The liberal candidates won each of the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections in 2023, 2025, and 2026, by more than 10%.

Potential impacts of big money

Many people are worried about the corrupting influence of money in politics.

Wealthy people, powerful corporations, and well-financed special interests often spend large amounts of money to influence the outcome of important elections.

Candidates running for elected judicial positions need to raise money to finance their campaigns, and their campaign advertising, just like candidates running in any other election.

People and organizations that spend money on judicial campaigns might subsequently have interests that will be affected by judicial decisions.

Judges could consider their ability to raise sufficient money in future elections, when deciding the outcome of important cases.

Even if judges were able to completely ignore potential campaign fundraising impacts of their judicial decisions, public confidence in the integrity of their courts could still be compromised by the understanding that elected judges will need to raise money for their campaigns, if they decide to run for reelection. 

 

A recent Supreme Court election in Wisconsin shows that billionaires are willing to spend large sums of money to influence the outcome of judicial elections.  

 

Caption: Courts must weigh evidence, balance competing interests, and carefully consider the consequences of their decisions. It should come as no surprise that scales, like those held by Lady Justice, are common symbols in legal imagery. 

Out-of-state Billionaires

The 2023 and 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court elections were the most expensive judicial elections in US history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

The 2023 election cost $51 million, and the 2025 election cost more than $100 million.

In 2025, Billionaire Elon Musk spent $25 million on the Wisconsin Supreme Court election in support of conservative candidate Brad Schimel, according to Newsweek.

Musk’s investment failed to pay off, as liberal candidate Susan Crawford won the election by a margin of 10.1%.

Liberal Billionaires George Soros and JB Pritzker donated large sums to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which provided money to Crawford’s campaign.

Elon Musk doesn’t live in Wisconsin. Neither does George Soros or JB Pritzker.

Elections that allow out-of-state billionaires to spend millions of dollars to back their preferred candidate might not be the best method to select state Supreme Court Justices.

Although, in the interest of transparency, I should disclose that I donated $20 to support liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Janet Protasiewicz in 2023.

And I raised $2.50 for liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford in 2025, through the Democratic Victory Fund.

The amount that I donated and raised for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates is far less than the gigantic sums spent on the race by Musk, Soros, or Pritzker.

But like Musk, Soros, and Pritzker, I also don’t live in Wisconsin.

Problems with Electing Judges

In 2015, John Oliver discussed the problems created by electing judges during a segment for his program LastWeekTonight.

Oliver discussed how some ads in judicial campaigns fail to make substantive arguments relevant to the campaign, while others can be wildly misleading.

Oliver also discussed how fundraising for judicial campaigns can create conflicts of interest.

The Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks and analyzes State Supreme Court elections, discussed the problems that campaign spending on these races can create.

“It’s no secret that big money in politics has transformed American elections,” the organization wrote on its website.

“What is less understood, however, is that influence-seeking money has also made tremendous inroads into our courts—institutions that are constitutionally obligated to provide equal justice regardless of wealth, status, or political connections,” the organization continued.

“Thirty-eight states conduct elections for their state supreme courts, powerful entities that are generally the final word on interpreting state law.”

The Brennan Center found that many ads in State Supreme Court elections target judges in misleading ways for their decisions on the bench, particularly in connection to criminal cases.

A History Lesson

Supporters and opponents of the proposed constitutional amendment in Kansas make arguments based on Kansas History.

So let’s briefly examine how Kansas has chosen its Supreme Court Justices in the past.

This summary is based on primarily on information compiled by the Kansas Information Network.

When Kansas became a state in 1861, its constitution required the direct election of Supreme Court Justices, who served six-year terms and ran in partisan elections.

The governor could fill mid-term vacancies by appointment, until the next election.

Kansas adopted its current merit-based system, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, in response to a scandal that took place in the 1950s.

Kansas Governor Fred Hall lost his reelection bid in the 1956 Republican Primary.

Both Hall and William Smith, the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court, resigned.

Following Hall’s resignation, Lieutenant Governor John McCuish became Governor, and appointed Fred Hall to the Kansas Supreme Court.

The event became known as the “Triple Play,” and sparked political backlash.

In response, the Kansas Legislature and Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment creating the merit-based system, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, currently used today.

Kansas voters approved the amendment in 1958.

You can learn more about the history of the scandal that lead to the creation of Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission in an article published by Humanities Kansas.

Under the proposed amendment to bring back direct elections for Kansas Supreme Court Justices, a different method has been proposed to fill mid-term vacancies than existed during Gov. Fred Hall’s Triple Play in the 1950s.

Rather than filling these vacancies by an appointment from the governor, they would instead be “filled by election as provided by law.”

A Consequential Decision

Next, let’s examine the role played by the Kansas Supreme Court in Kansas Politics.

Republicans have held veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature since 2011.

This has given Republicans in the Legislature immense power in Kansas Politics.

Kansas elected Laura Kelly, a Democrat, to be governor in 2018, and reelected her in 2022.

A governor can veto legislation approved by the Republican Legislature.

But if Republicans stick together, they can, and often do, override those vetoes.

Laws approved by the Republican Legislature are subject to legal review by the Kansas Supreme Court, making the court a powerful player in the Kansas constitutional system.

While it’s hard to predict how electing Kansas Supreme Court Justices might change how the court would rule on important matters, it’s worth engaging in informed speculation, nonetheless.

Let’s consider how electing the Kansas Supreme Court could impact abortion rights, K-12 education spending, and transgender rights.

Abortion Rights

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion.

Kansas Republicans would absolutely end abortion rights in Kansas, if they could.

But prior to the end of federal protection for abortion rights, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the right to abortion is protected by the Kansas Constitution.

In April 2019, the court found the right to an abortion is implicitly protected by the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which states, “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

In Jan. 2021, Republicans in the Kansas Legislature advanced a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have given the Legislature the legal authority to enact a restrictive abortion ban.

In August 2022, Kansas voters decisively rejected the proposed amendment, 59% to 41%.

The push to directly elect members to the Kansas Supreme Court is a direct successor of the anti-abortion amendment voters rejected four years ago. 

 

In September 2022, Kris Kobach, who was the Republican nominee for Kansas Attorney General at the time, proposed amending the Kansas Constitution to directly elect state Supreme Court Justices.

Kobach told a group of Republicans that the change would clear a path for the state to “slowly and quietly” place anti-abortion judges on the Kansas Supreme Court with the ultimate goal of overturning the 2019 decision that found the state constitution protects abortion rights, according to the Wichita Eagle.

Kobach said the decision threw, “a huge wrench into the works” of the anti-abortion movement in Kansas.

“Now, there are two ways to deal with that,” Kobach said. “There are two paths. One is to come in with a state constitution amendment that corrects the decision. That’s what we just tried to do, and it didn’t work out. But there’s another path.”

In 2022, Kris Kobach (R) was elected Kansas Attorney General by a margin of 1.6%.

Kobach is running for reelection this year, in a rematch against Chris Mann (D), the same candidate he ran against in 2022.

Kris Kobach supports the proposed constitutional amendment to directly elect Kansas Supreme Court Justices.

If voters approve the amendment, abortion rights will be front and center in every election for the Kansas Supreme Court.

Abortion rights are popular in Kansas, but other considerations could lead voters to vote in favor of Supreme Court candidates opposed to abortion rights.

Voters might vote for a candidate, because they are running as a Republican in a partisan election, or they may choose to prioritize other issues that lead them to prefer conservative candidates for the State Supreme Court.

Both supporters and opponents of direct elections for Kansas Supreme Court Justices believe that if the judicial election amendment is approved, it would be more likely for the State Supreme Court’s decision protecting abortion rights to be overturned, than if the current system remains in place.

Education Funding

The Kansas Constitution states, “the legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.”

Previously, school districts have sued the State of Kansas for failing to provide sufficient funding for K-12 education in the state.

The Kansas Supreme Court has, at times, determined the Kansas Legislature has failed to constitutionally fund K-12 education.

The Court considers whether K-12 education funding is adequate and equitable, and has sometimes determined that the Legislature has failed to meet these constitutional requirements.

It can be incredibly challenging to understand technical discussions and litigation surrounding K-12 education funding in Kansas.

But long story short, Republicans would spend less on K-12 education in Kansas, if the Kansas Supreme Court would let them.

Ty Masterson, the President of the Kansas Senate, is running as a Republican for Kansas Governor.

Last year, Masterson told a group of Republicans that if the proposed constitutional amendment is approved, the Kansas Supreme Court will stop requiring the Legislature to spend more on education, according to the Marion County Record.

"If we elect our Supreme Court, they won’t force you to spend money on schools,” Masterson said.

Ty Masterson supports directly electing Kansas Supreme Court Justices.

Donald Trump has endorsed Ty Masterson in the Kansas Governor’s race.

In decisions made by Justices selected by the current system, the Kansas Supreme Court has sometimes ruled against the Legislature for failing to adequately and equitably fund K-12 education in Kansas.

Those who support the Court’s ability to do so support keeping the current Kansas Supreme Court selection process in place.

Those who believe the Legislature, rather than the Courts, should decide how much to spend on K-12 education, want to directly elect State Supreme Court Justices, instead.

Transgender Rights

Earlier this year, the Kansas Legislature approved a draconian anti-trans bill.

Gov. Laura Kelly (D) vetoed the bill, but Republicans in the Kansas Legislature overrode Kelly’s veto, passing the bill into law.

The law prevents transgender people from obtaining identity documents that reflect their gender identity and makes it illegal for them to use certain restrooms and locker rooms.

The law prevents transgender Kansans from obtaining state-issued identity documents that display their gender identity, rather than their biological sex assigned at birth.

The law invalidated existing drivers licenses and birth certificates, held by transgender Kansans, that identified them based on their gender identity, and required these documents to be changed to display their sex assigned at birth.

The law also made it illegal for transgender Kansans to use restrooms and locker rooms in government buildings, designed for multiple people to use, that are designated for members of the opposite sex.

This means the law made it illegal for transgender girls and women to use women’s restrooms or locker rooms in government buildings designed for multiple people to use.

And the law made it illegal for transgender boys and men to use men’s restrooms or locker rooms in government buildings designed for multiple people to use.

People who violate this provision will be subject to a warning for their first offense, a $1,000 fine for their second offense, and a third or subsequent offense qualifies as a misdemeanor crime.

Private individuals using restrooms or locker rooms that are entered by someone violating this provision may sue the person who entered the restroom or locker room for $1,000.

Gov. Laura Kelly (D) vetoed this draconian bill, but Republicans in the Kansas Legislature overrode Kelly’s veto, passing the bill into law.

To override a governor’s veto, a bill requires approval from two-thirds of the members of both chambers in the Kansas Legislature.

84 votes are required in the Kansas House, and 27 votes are required in the Kansas Senate.

On Feb. 17, the Kansas Senate overrode Kelly’s veto.

The bill received 31 votes, 4 more than it needed.

All 31 Republicans in the Kansas Senate voted in favor of the anti-trans bill.

All 9 Democrats in the Kansas Senate voted against the anti-trans bill.

On Feb. 18, the Kansas House overrode Kelly’s veto.

The bill received 87 votes, 3 more than it needed.

87 Republicans in the Kansas House voted in favor of the anti-trans bill.

1 Republican, Mark Schreiber, voted against the bill.

36 Democrats in the Kansas House voted against the anti-trans bill.

1 Democrat, Valdenia Winn, was absent.

Transgender and Intersex Kansans, represented by the ACLU, are challenging the anti-trans law in court.

The lawsuit challenges the law as a whole, as well as the drivers license and restroom provisions, specifically.

What does all this have to do with the method Kansas uses to select State Supreme Court Justices?

In the distant future, after years and years of protracted litigation, the Kansas Supreme Court will likely eventually decide an important case concerning transgender rights, on the merits of the legal questions presented in the case.

When that day finally comes, I believe the Kansas Supreme Court will be more likely to rule favorably towards a politically-disfavored minority group if its Justices don’t have to worry about how their decision could be used against them by opposing candidates, if they run for reelection.

I believe the current system for selecting Justices, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, is more likely to incentivize Justices to rule fairly, based on the facts and the law, when deciding the outcome of important cases about transgender rights.

The Kansas Model

On Tuesday, Aug. 4, Kansas voters will decide how members of the Kansas Supreme Court will be chosen, going forward.

They could choose to keep the current merit-based system, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, which protects the integrity of our Supreme Court from the influence of big-money campaign donors, and maintains public trust in the Court.

Or they could choose to elect members of the Supreme Court, based on rules that will be subsequently chosen by Republicans in the Kansas Legislature.

While we can’t know for sure what those elections would be like, we can make an informed guess based on how judicial elections work in other states.

At worst, elections for the Kansas Supreme Court could attract million-dollar donations from out-of-state billionaires, who wish to determine the ideological balance of the court.

Expensive campaigns could lead Justices to consider the potential fundraising implications of legal decisions that could impact major campaign donors.

Campaigns could be dominated by divisive and emotionally-charged political issues, with key rights on the line, based on the outcome of these races.

Campaign ads could lack relevant information about the candidates or contain misleading and inflammatory claims about how judges have handled previous cases. 

Electing judges could result in the loss of abortion rights in Kansas, a reduction in spending for K-12 education, and worse outcomes for transgender rights.

All of this is speculative, but it’s based on a fair understanding of the experiences of other states and the dynamics of Kansas Politics.

After researching judicial elections in other states, important decisions made by the Kansas Supreme Court, and the history that led to the current system, I believe the current merit-based method for selecting Supreme Court Justices is a wonderful system.

Our current system, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, is a model other states should consider adopting to avoid the problems that can arise from direct elections for Supreme Court Justices.

As Kansans, we should take pride in this “Kansas Model,” which has served the state well in the almost 70 years since Kansas voters adopted it in 1958.

Caption: A close-up photo of a pin that displays the Kansas State Seal. The pin is part of my button collection. 

 

The current system works well, and we should keep it.

VOTE NO on Tuesday, Aug. 4 to protect the integrity of the Kansas Supreme Court.

I am raising money for Kansas United for Impartial Courts, which opposes direct elections for the Kansas Supreme Court.

You can donate to this organization through Sunflower Democrats or the Democratic Victory Fund.

Sunflower Democrats supports Democrats in Kansas, the Democratic Victory Fund supports Democrats nationwide.

If you want to break the Republican Supermajority in the Kansas Legislature, you can donate to Sunflower Democrats, which raises money for Democrats running in competitive districts for the Kansas Legislature.

Finally, if you appreciated this article, you can support my political coverage on Patreon.