To the editor:

Supporters of Senate Concurrent Resolution 1611 (SCR 1611) argue that Kansas’s current system for selecting Supreme Court justices is broken. The evidence suggests otherwise.

Critics of the current process often focus on three questions: whether the court’s decisions are legally sound, whether the court is ideologically biased, and whether voters have meaningful oversight.

On legal performance, the Kansas Supreme Court compares favorably to courts nationwide. Since 1966, about 67% of Kansas cases reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court have been reversed—roughly 10% lower than the national average. That record suggests the Kansas Supreme Court is functioning at a high level.

Claims of ideological bias are also baseless. Over the last decade, the court has issued rulings that pleased and frustrated people across the political spectrum. The same court that protected constitutional rights related to school funding, abortion, and voter registration has also approved additional abortion restrictions, upheld ballot-collection limits, and ended its oversight of school finance. That is not the record of a consistently biased court. It is the record of an ideologically neutral court.

Finally, Kansas already has voter accountability. Newly appointed justices must stand in a statewide retention election after one year, and every six years thereafter. These elections are non-partisan, and campaign dollars are prohibited, ensuring justices solely answer to Kansans–not political groups or wealthy donors.

SCR 1611 is a solution in search of a nonexistent problem. Vote NO on SCR 1611 in the August 2026 primary election.

Kelm Lear

Manhattan