As we approach Labor Day, the unofficial start of the general election season, it’s worth looking back at a strategic decision Kansas Republicans made decades ago.

In the early 1970s, as part of efforts to modernize the executive branch, Republicans advanced a constitutional amendment that replaced the old gubernatorial two-year term system, and no term limits, with four-year terms and a two-term limit.

The amendment reworked the electoral calendar as well, moving gubernatorial elections entirely to the midterm cycle, following the directive that executive officers would be chosen “in the year 1974 and every four years thereafter.”

Republicans touted the change as a way to keep Kansas politics separate from national trends.

Presidential elections distracted voters, they argued, pulling attention away from Kansas and toward Washington. Midterms, meanwhile, spotlight state issues. Consequently, Kansans would benefit if their gubernatorial races were insulated from federal politics.

Republicans also saw midterms as friendlier terrain, an electoral environment that promised more victories. Yet, the basis for that confidence remains a mystery.

For example, from 1928 to 1972, Republican gubernatorial candidates won nine of the 12 races held during presidential election years. An excellent 75% win rate.

But over that same period, Republicans won just seven out of eleven midterm governor races, a middling 63% win rate.

In other words, midterm contests were not an advantage.

The picture sharpens further when accounting for who sat in the Oval Office.

Midterms under Democratic presidents were a boon for Republicans. Six wins in seven tries. Under Republican presidents, they struggled, dropping three of four.

Gubernatorial races tracked the classic midterm rule; the president’s party pays a price.

That’s not insulation; that’s national politics bleeding straight into Kansas elections.

Today, the pattern persists.

Republicans have won fewer than half of the 13 midterm governor contests since the change. Their fortunes rise sharply when Democrats hold the White House, winning four of the five contests by an average of twenty-seven points. But under Republican presidents, victories are rare, two of eight by an average of two points.

So, why did Republicans push the amendment?

It ended Democratic Governor Robert Docking’s tenure, halting his streak after four consecutive two-year terms, the longest gubernatorial run in Kansas history. Those four two-year terms were counted as two full terms, meaning Docking reached the new limit in 1974. He could not run again.

Docking came from a family already woven deep into Kansas political life. His father, George, had served as governor for two two-year terms in the late 1950s, making Robert’s rise the second chapter of a Democratic dynasty.

At the time, Robert was only 49 years old, had not signaled retirement, and enjoyed broad public support, securing three of his four terms by decisive double-digit margins.

Republicans could’ve avoided the appearance of partisan targeting by exempting Docking or even delaying changes until the next electoral cycle. Other states that enacted similar reforms let sitting governors run again.

But ending the Docking era was just too tempting.

Republicans chose instant gratification. And that decision locked gubernatorial elections into the midterm cycle. A change that has not benefited them.

Had they paused and considered the historical data, Kansans might vote for their governors during presidential years, like several other states do.

Certainly, GOP gubernatorial nominee Ty Masterson would trade the headwinds of the current midterm cycle for the Republican-friendly 2024 presidential landscape.

— Mark Joslyn is a professor of political science at the University of Kansas.