A coalition of Kansas advocacy groups has begun staffing up for a political campaign aimed at defeating a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Kansas voters to elect justices on the Kansas Supreme Court.
The amendment, expected to appear on the August 2026 primary ballot, would replace the state’s current merit-selection system with direct statewide elections for justices.
According to research compiled by Kansas policy analyst Earl Glynn, the advocacy coalition Kansas United for Impartial Courts (KUIC) began reviewing applications in early March for several campaign positions designed to organize opposition to the amendment.
Glynn reported that KUIC advertised two positions paying $8,000 per month and another paying $6,500 per month to build campaign infrastructure. A campaign manager position listed earlier in the year offered $12,000 per month, and the role appears to have already been filled.
“On Monday Kansas United for Impartial Courts started reviewing applications for three positions to oppose a constitutional amendment to allow the direct election of Supreme Court Judges in Kansas,” Glynn wrote in his March 3 analysis of the campaign’s early activity.
According to the job postings Glynn reviewed, the coalition’s field director will be responsible for hiring three additional field organizers as part of a statewide voter outreach effort ahead of the August referendum.
Coalition of advocacy organizations
The KUIC coalition includes several prominent Kansas advocacy groups and professional organizations. A campaign job listing reviewed by Glynn identified participating groups including the ACLU of Kansas, the Kansas National Education Association, Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, the Kansas Values Institute, and members of the Kansas legal community.
Public records show KUIC incorporated in 2025 with board members drawn from leadership of those organizations, including:
- Evan Gates of the Kansas Values Institute
- Micah Kubic of the ACLU of Kansas
- Emily Wales of Planned Parenthood Great Plains
The coalition has argued that electing judges could inject partisan politics into the state’s highest court.
During a presentation to the League of Women Voters on Kansas Day at the state capitol earlier this year, Kubic warned that the proposed amendment could politicize the judiciary.
In video of the presentation cited by Glynn, Kubic suggested opponents should emphasize policy stakes surrounding issues such as abortion rights, school funding, LGBTQ protections and voting laws. Kubic said the campaign would frame the issue similarly to the high-profile 2022 statewide vote on abortion policy.
“We will have the infrastructure and mechanisms to do what we did in 2022,” Kubic said in remarks highlighted by Glynn.
Long-running debate over Kansas judicial selection
The issue of judicial selection has been a subject of debate in Kansas for decades, and has intensified after a number of highly controversial opinions proponents say illustrates a defined liberal, progressive bias by court members.
The court spent nearly 20 years litigating school funding in the state in the Montoy and Gannon cases, repeatedly ruling the Legislature failed to adequately fund education and forced legislators to increase funding. As those levels of funding increased, performance of Kansas public school students has steadily decreased. The court voted 6-1 in an explosive 2019 ruling effectively saying the Kansas Constitution guarantees a right to abortion. Further rulings countermanding legislative abortion restrictions also alienated abortion opponents.
Kansas currently uses a “merit-selection” system created by constitutional amendment in 1958. Under the process, a nine-member nominating commission reviews candidates for the Kansas Supreme Court determines the “merit” of candidates, and sends three finalists to the governor, who must appoint one of them.
Five of the nine commission members are lawyers elected by attorneys through the Kansas Bar Association, while four non-lawyers are appointed by the governor. Critics have argued that the structure gives attorneys outsized influence over the selection of justices.
Kansas is unusual among states in allowing lawyers to elect members of the nominating commission. According to research compiled by Ballotpedia, most states either elect their high-court justices directly or use appointment systems without attorney-controlled commissions.
Supporters of the proposed amendment argue direct elections would make the court more accountable to voters. Opponents contend elections could subject judges to partisan political pressure and campaign fundraising.
Funding and political context
Glynn’s research also noted that some organizations involved in the coalition have received funding from national philanthropic networks.
For example, the ACLU of Kansas reported receiving $350,000 from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and $101,037 from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation in 2024, according to nonprofit financial disclosures cited in Glynn’s analysis. The Buffett Foundation has also contributed millions of dollars to abortion-related initiatives and providers nationally, including grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates.
The coming campaign is expected to mirror the scale of previous statewide ballot battles in Kansas. The 2022 constitutional amendment on abortion rights drew tens of millions of dollars in spending from national and state advocacy groups on both sides.
Dane Hicks is a graduate of the University of Missouri School of Journalism and the United States Marine Corps Officer Candidate School at Quantico, VA. He is the author of novels "The Skinning Tree" and "A Whisper For Help." As publisher of the Anderson County Review in Garnett, KS., he is a recipient of the Kansas Press Association's Boyd Community Service Award as well as more than 60 awards for excellence in news, editorial and photography.
