North Lawrence Democrats

Matthew Kleinmann gives tips on how to shape your conversations with your neighbors to help get them out to vote.

Matt Kleinmann describes why canvassing your neighbors works. Matt Kleinmann describes why canvassing your neighbors works to get...

Find out what's on the ballot in Douglas County: https://bit.ly/nolawvotes
Find out how and where to vote in Douglas County: https://www.dgcoks.gov/.../voting-and-elections/ways-to-vote
Find your sample ballot: https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org/VoterView
Find out why voting no matters: https://protectkansasrights.org/

Americans’ trust in the judiciary and the justice system is eroding at every level. From the U.S. Supreme Court to state courts across the country, polls show sharply declining public confidence in courts as trustworthy institutions.
The response from many special interest groups and politicians has been to try to politicize these institutions further, and the next front is state supreme courts, starting here in Kansas.
Across the country, there is a growing effort to turn judgeships into elected positions, allowing billionaire political donors to flood judicial races with money and to treat the bench as just another prize to be won in our increasingly polarized society.
We believe this is the wrong solution. And we say this as two former governors of Kansas from different political parties, where the state has used a better model — the gold standard for others to follow — to select the judges who sit on our state’s highest bench.
For years, Kansas has selected supreme court justices through a nonpartisan, merit-based process. A diverse nominating commission — with representatives from every corner of the state — evaluates individuals on their qualifications and recommends three candidates to the governor. The governor then appoints from that list. Once appointed, Justices face periodic statewide retention elections, giving Kansans a vote on who continues to serve on the bench.
Kansas voters created this merit-based system after the “Triple Play” scandal, when a state Supreme Court seat was handed out as a political favor.
The merit-based system works. We have seen it work, because it allowed us to appoint capable, independent justices who served Kansans well. And we have fought for it together. In 2016, well-funded special interest groups launched a coordinated effort to remove nearly every justice standing for retention — not because those justices had failed in their duties, but because they had ruled in ways that powerful outside groups disliked. Back then, we came together to make the case to Kansas voters that this was exactly the kind of political pressure the system was designed to resist. Voters agreed, and the effort failed.
Now many of those same forces are back, better organized and better funded, pushing once again to put billionaires and dark money special interests in control of our Supreme Court. In less than two weeks, Kansans will vote on whether to keep the merit-based system or replace it with partisan judicial elections. We are confident voters will reject the attempt to overhaul the state’s Supreme Court.
Our courts are not just another institution. They are the last firewall against partisanship and special interest influence in a world increasingly defined by both. When legislatures are gridlocked or controlled by powerful interests, when independent agencies are politicized, when elections themselves are disputed, courts are where Americans go. The courthouse is the place where every Kansan should stand on equal footing with the most powerful interests. That only works if those judges got there on merit, not by money or political loyalty.
In states that do elect their state supreme court justices, hundreds of millions of dollars now pour into judicial elections. Outside groups and individual billionaire donors have made capturing state courts a strategic priority. We should be doing everything we can to shield our courts from that pressure.
This is not a partisan argument. A judiciary that can be bought is dangerous to everyone, regardless of party. When judges owe their seats to donors and party bosses, the rule of law becomes contingent on who holds power.
Every Kansan needs the courts to be the backstop of our political system that produces fair, independent rulings, and every one of us deserves to know that the judge across the bench got there because they were the best qualified, not the best funded.

- Kathleen Sebelius served as Governor of Kansas from 2003 to 2009 and as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services from 2009 to 2014. Bill Graves served as Governor of Kansas from 1995 to 2003.

Lawrence Journal World, July 10, 2026
Opinion: Amendment is also about schools
When Kansans head to the polls on Aug. 4, they’ll be asked to decide whether to change how Kansas Supreme Court justices are chosen. But this vote is about far more than judicial elections. It will have lasting consequences for public education in Kansas.
As a political science professor, I’m less interested in campaign slogans than in real-world consequences. The question before voters isn’t just who picks judges. It’s whether Kansas wants to change one of the key checks and balances that has helped protect constitutional rights–including the right to an adequately funded public education.
For decades, the Kansas Supreme Court has been the institution that stepped in when lawmakers failed to meet their constitutional obligation to fund public schools. The court has repeatedly required the state to do more for Kansas’ students, even when those decisions were politically unpopular. That wasn’t judicial activism. It was the court doing its job: enforcing the Kansas Constitution.
That history is exactly why this amendment matters.
Many of the people pushing for this change have spent years criticizing the court’s role in school-funding cases. Their frustration is understandable; court rulings often forced lawmakers to spend more money on education. But that’s also the point. When elected officials fail to uphold constitutional obligations, the courts are supposed to step in.
If this amendment passes, future Supreme Court justices would have to run campaigns, raise money, seek endorsements, and win elections. And that changes the incentives. A justice deciding whether Kansas schools need more funding could face pressure that current justices largely avoid: the knowledge that a controversial ruling may become campaign ammunition in the next election.
The biggest risk isn’t that judges suddenly become partisan actors. The bigger risk is that courts become less willing to challenge elected officials when constitutional rights are on the line.
And when it comes to education, the stakes are enormous.
Many of the most important improvements in Kansas school funding happened only after the courts intervened. Without an independent court serving as a backstop, school funding disputes could become purely political battles. In that environment, students will lose every single time.
The consequences would be felt in classrooms across the state. Schools may struggle to hire and retain teachers. Class sizes could grow. Building repairs and facility upgrades could be delayed. Students with special needs could face reduced support. Rural districts and lower-income communities — many of which already operate with limited resources — would likely feel the greatest impact.
Most importantly, the people affected would not be politicians, judges, or special-interest groups. They would be children.
When schools lack adequate funding, students lose opportunities that cannot easily be replaced. They lose access to early childhood programs that help them succeed later in life. They lose tutoring and intervention programs that help struggling learners catch up. They lose mental health resources, college-preparation programs, and career-training opportunities. Those losses don’t disappear when a budget cycle ends. They shape a student’s future for years.
Supporters of the amendment argue that elected judges would be more accountable to voters. Accountability matters. But courts were never designed to function like legislatures. Legislators are supposed to follow public opinion. Judges are supposed to follow the law — even when doing so is unpopular.
That leads to the most important question voters should ask themselves: Who will hold the state accountable if it fails to meet its constitutional responsibility to Kansas students?
For generations, the Kansas Supreme Court has helped answer that question. The August vote is about much more than how judges get their jobs. It’s about whether Kansas wants a court that can stand up to political pressure when constitutional rights are threatened, or one that may increasingly be shaped by the same political forces it is supposed to check.
Whatever voters decide, they should understand that this amendment is not just about courts. It is also about classrooms, communities and the future opportunities available to Kansas’ children. The effects of this vote will be felt long after campaign signs disappear — and long after today’s students become tomorrow’s citizens.
— Alexandra Middlewood is an associate professor and chair of the Political Science Department at Wichita State University.

Early voting starts Wednesday, July 15 leading up to the August 4 election. Please visit bit.ly/nolawvotes for all election information.

Letter to the Hutchinson News, July 12, 2026

Consider how electing high court judges could affect water rights
If you live in rural Kansas, you should care about how we select our state supreme court justices. Why? Water.

On Aug. 4, Kansans will be voting on a proposed state constitutional amendment that would change the way we select our state supreme court justices from a merit-based process to a popular election. The Kansas Supreme Court is the final interpreter of Kansas law, so our seven state supreme court justices hold great power to decide who wins when a dispute arises over water rights.

If we change the way we select our state supreme court justices to a popular election, our justices would be reduced to being politicians beholden to wealthy donors — just like other politicians. That’s how popular elections work.

If the amendment passes, campaign money would immediately start flowing to the seven sitting state supreme court justices and the PACs (political action committees) that support them. Lots of money. In effect, our state supreme court justices would be on the payroll of big agriculture in the hopes of influencing important cases about water rights.

For example, currently pending before the Kansas Supreme Court is a case about whether Hays and Russell can divert aquifer water from Edwards County to supplement its own supply. Or what if an actor from another state like Colorado makes campaign contributions to a justice to influence and gain water rights out of the western Kansas aquafer? The outcomes of cases involving water rights should not be influenced by those who gave the most money to the justices deciding the case or which PAC spent the most money to get a justice elected.

Also consider big tech companies who want to build data centers in rural Kansas “because no-one lives there” — data centers that require millions of gallons of clean water to prevent overheating. With popular elections, justices deciding whether and where data centers can be built would be beholden to their largest donors and the PACs that got them elected. Precious water in our rural communities should not be for sale to the highest bidder.

Currently, we have a nominating commission that vets judicial candidates and recommends the three most qualified candidates to the governor. It’s through the nominating commission that we get state supreme court justices from rural parts of Kansas — not just the big cities. Our current system has worked since the late 1950s. Plus, once justices are selected, we get to vote to retain those justices, so they’re already on our election ballot.

Popularly electing our state supreme court justices would favor big agriculture and big tech because — let’s face it — they have lots of money. A vote NO on Aug. 4 keeps big agriculture and big tech from buying seats on our state’s highest court.

Amii Castle, Professor, KU School of Law

Thanks to Representative Brooklynne Mosley for launching our Saturday morning canvassing to make sure Democrats in Douglas County have a plan to vote in this primary election.