On the August primary ballot, Kansans are being asked to decide whether to fundamentally change how we choose justices for our state Supreme Court. The proposed shift from merit selection to popular elections may sound like an expansion of democratic participation. But beneath that appealing rhetoric lies a much more troubling reality: elections risk transforming judges into political actors and, in the process, weakening the very legitimacy that courts depend on to function.

Kansas’ current merit-based system was designed to avoid precisely this outcome. A nonpartisan commission evaluates candidates on their qualifications and professional record before forwarding a shortlist to the governor. Voters, importantly, still retain the power to remove justices through retention elections. This system reflects a careful balance that preserves democratic accountability without sacrificing judicial independence.

That balance matters more than ever. Courts rely on public acceptance of their decisions. And here, recent political science research gives us a stark warning about what is at stake. A 2025 political science study finds that when judges are selected through competitive elections, the very source of their legitimacy changes. Instead of being grounded in law and legal reasoning, it becomes rooted in representation — like elected officials.

The study shows that courts seen as “representative” bodies — those shaped by elections — are actually less able to secure public acceptance of their rulings. Even if people think an elected court is legitimate, they are less likely to accept its rulings when they disagree with them.

Courts must sometimes issue unpopular decisions and their effectiveness depends on trust in the process. Transforming judges into elected representatives risks eroding that trust precisely when it is most needed.

There are also more familiar concerns about elections that Kansans should not dismiss. Campaigning requires money and partisanship, often at the expense of impartiality. Merit selection, by contrast, is designed to prioritize legal expertise while reducing those pressures.

What makes the proposed amendment particularly puzzling is that it does not arise from widespread public dissatisfaction. The 2025 Kansas Speaks survey reports that only 21% of Kansans express dissatisfaction with the state Supreme Court. This level of approval is notable. It suggests that the current system, whatever its imperfections, is broadly working.

More concerning still, the amendment fails to specify what system would replace the current merit-based process, instead deferring that critical decision to a future session of the Kansas Legislature. If recent trends hold, that would effectively hand an unchecked partisan supermajority the authority to determine how justices are selected–an outcome that risks further politicizing a branch of government that depends on independence.

So what problem are we trying to solve? Structural changes of this magnitude should be driven by clear evidence of failure and a solid plan for reform. Instead, this proposal is more likely to create new problems — greater political pressure, less impartial decision-making, and weaker public trust — than to fix existing ones.

None of this is to suggest that courts should be unaccountable. In Kansas, they are not. Retention elections already provide voters with a meaningful check, while the merit process helps ensure qualified judges. This is not undemocratic; it recognizes that democracy depends on more than elections. It depends on legitimacy and the rule of law.

As Kansans consider this ballot amendment, the question is not whether voters should have a voice–they already do. The question is whether we are willing to trade a system that promotes impartiality and competence for one that risks politicization and biased decision-making. The evidence suggests that Kansans are largely satisfied with our Supreme Court. We should tread carefully before dismantling a system that is working, particularly when the amendment offers no clear vision of what would replace it.

Kansas has long benefited from a judiciary that aspires to be impartial, professional, and independent. We should be cautious about abandoning that tradition. Sometimes, preserving democracy means keeping certain institutions above the fray of electoral politics. Our Supreme Court is one of them.

— Alexandra Middlewood is an associate professor and chair of the Political Science Department at Wichita State University.