The Rot of Judicial Elections: A Kansas Experiment Gone Wrong

Judicial elections have long been touted as a way to hold judges accountable. However, this notion neglects the inherent conflict of interest when politicians and special interests get involved. As seen in Wisconsin and other states, a system designed to safeguard fairness can quickly devolve into partisan manipulation.

Kansas lawmakers are proposing a constitutional amendment that would replace the state’s merit-based appointment system with competitive judicial elections. Proponents claim this change will give Kansans a greater say in who serves on the Supreme Court, but its true purpose is shrouded in uncertainty. What is clear, though, is that this move would open the floodgates for outside money and special interests to pour into state judicial races.

The recent spending spree in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election is a cautionary tale of what happens when politics takes precedence over principle. Over $100 million was spent on a single seat, with Elon Musk leading the charge. This figure is not an aberration but rather the new normal in judicial elections, where outside groups and billionaires use their deep pockets to influence outcomes.

Kansas lawmakers have dismissed concerns about corruption by pointing to the state’s perennially purple status as a reason why Wisconsin’s spending was so high. However, this reasoning is a convenient cop-out. The rapid transformation of judicial races into partisan battlegrounds has become a national trend, with states like Montana and Kentucky experiencing their most expensive judicial elections ever in recent cycles.

Judicial elections create an incentive for judges to rule in favor of those who supported them financially during election years. This phenomenon is not just speculation; mounting evidence shows that judges are more likely to side with major donors and parties when their seats are on the line. Former California Supreme Court Justice Otto Kaus captured this issue perfectly, likening it to finding a crocodile in your bathtub – an unwelcome presence that can’t be ignored.

If the amendment passes, Kansas legislators would gain even more control over the judicial branch, allowing them to dictate not only the rules of these elections but also the outcomes. This could lead to a system where politicians gerrymander judicial districts to favor their preferred candidates, creating an even greater conflict of interest.

Proponents claim that this amendment will give Kansans a greater say in who serves on the Supreme Court, but they’re really proposing a solution that’s been tried and failed elsewhere. The Kansas merit-based system has served the state well for nearly seven decades, providing a much-needed check on partisan politics. Replacing it with a system that invites corruption and manipulation will only serve to erode public trust in the judiciary.

If the people of Kansas are concerned about having a fair and impartial court, they should be wary of this amendment. They should also look beyond their state’s borders and consider what’s at stake in other parts of the country. The creeping influence of special interests and politicians on judicial elections is a cancer that threatens to undermine the very foundations of our justice system.

Ultimately, it’s not just about Kansas or its proposed constitutional amendment. It’s about whether we’re willing to sacrifice our principles for the sake of politics. As the stakes grow higher in these elections, one thing is clear: if we allow special interests and politicians to dictate the outcome of judicial races, we risk losing something far more valuable than a fair and impartial court – we risk losing our democracy itself.