It’s not often the people of Kansas get to hold a “referendum” on state legislation. In fact, they can’t. At least not on their own.

Under our state’s Constitution, we operate a representative democracy electing legislators to make decisions on our behalf and ultimately hold them accountable every two to four years. This indirect democracy can be viewed as a paternalistic relationship between electeds and electorate. A reassuring pat on the head from politicians that lawmaking is their province, and they will call us when needed.

So any time our Legislature agrees to offer us a chance at direct power on one issue, we should stand up and take note.

And any time our Llegislature agrees to offer us a chance at direct power forever, we should stand up, take note and run as fast as we can to our polling place before they change their minds.

Which is why we should really take notice of what the conservative-controlled Legislature did last week when the required two-thirds majority passed SCR 1611, a proposed constitutional amendment asking voters on Aug. 4, 2026, if we should elect (not just retain) our seven Supreme Court justices. Not only do we get invited to dinner, but it’s a permanent invite and we get to buy the groceries!

That is not to say electing the Supreme Court is totally advisable.

On its face, SCR 1611 is a de facto “referendum” on the current merit-based selection process controlled by bar-appointed lawyers and governor-appointed citizens. Passed by 70% of the electorate in 1958 after Gov. Fred Hall’s infamous triple-play scandal, the system was enacted to keep Supreme Court selections free of corruption, moneyed interests and political bosses.

But if you use your sunflower-colored glasses and squint through the Oz dust of debate, you might also see a glimmer of hope: direct democracy!

Today, 26 states provide for some form of direct, or pure, democracy that bypasses legislatures with citizen-initiated ballot measures for new laws (initiatives) and/or vetoes (referendums) through collection of signatures (petitions). Laws without lawmakers.

Sadly, Kansas does not; Gov. Joan Finney was the last to earnestly push the issue in the early 1990s. Technically, SCR 1611 is not direct democracy either, but it’s close. It has no citizen-initiated lawmaking. But citizens gain a direct line to pick justices who enforce the biggest law (Kansas Constitution) and the weightiest legal question of our time (a woman’s right to an abortion).

So why stop there?

The Kansas Constitution already allows citizen-initiated ballot measures for cities, counties and school districts.

All adjoining states — Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Oklahoma — allow it; and all but five states west of the Mississippi.

Sixty-four percent of states with part-time “citizen” legislatures, like Kansas, allow it.

Most of all, big issues supported by a majority of Kansans but ignored by legislative leadership — Medicaid expansion (72%), recreational marijuana (65%), a woman’s right to choose (65%), assault weapon bans (55%) — could be put to a vote of the people once and for all.

Even Senate President Ty Masterson, R-Andover, an expected 2026 gubernatorial candidate who led the charge for SCR 1611, believes “it’s time to give the people the opportunity to assume that power and tear down firewalls and shine the light of democracy we all claim to support.”

I couldn’t agree more. If legislative leaders are truly ingenuous about tearing down judiciary firewalls for the people, their own firewalls should be next.

— Bill Fiander is a lecturer at Washburn University and the former planning and development director for the City of Topeka.