The judicial-elections arms race is coming for Kansas

Freewill, Rush

Table of Contents

• On Censorship

• Recap: Kansas Supreme Court Politics

• Both sides are preparing for an expensive battle

• This vote will define Kansas for a generation

• What you should do right now

• Kansas impact (policy stakes)

On Censorship

It’s been a difficult couple of weeks for free speech. Between Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension by ABC after remarks about Charlie Kirk, Trump’s open call for federal prosecution of his enemies, and Pentagon’s new restrictions on reporters covering the military, it’s easy to worry. I’ve always tried to be non-inflammatory in this newsletter…but those days are probably ending. I may lose some of you as subscribers, but I deeply believe in free speech and do this, in part, to defend it.

Free speech has consequences. (Isn’t that the whole point of free speech? To be able to influence the world around us through non-violent action?) What’s happening in the national politic is a blatant effort to suppress non-conservative speech and to erase any risk of negative consequences for the approved speech that remains. For example, consider the below transcript of part of Benny Johnson’s speech at the Charlie Kirk memorial:

Some have described this speech as Christofascist. It endorses a worldview where the nation is ruled by the vengeful, with an eagerness to terrorize people with opposing views. It’s a politics of retribution for perceived injustices inflicted upon the right; from the President down, leadership explicitly rejects any notion of unifying the culture. It is a politics of dominance and the use (abuse?) of raw power, wherever power is available.

I flatly reject this philosophy. But I also can’t counsel people of moderate or liberal beliefs to wait for the fever to break; if a group declares you to be an enemy combatant, you take that seriously.

This “war on the left” is well underway, and reaches down to all levels of governance. We see it in the redistricting charades in Texas and Missouri (and, probably, coming soon to Kansas); we see it in billion-dollar assaults on higher education; we see it in the trivial prescriptive demands made of teachers and doctors to use and avoid specific words. We see it in the quasi-banning of vaccines. We see it in efforts to replace people of expertise and experience throughout civic government with apparatchiks.

Next August, it comes to Kansas in full-force as a public vote to replace the state supreme court justices with politically elected partisans.

Recap: Kansas Supreme Court Politics

First, a quick refresher on what happened earlier this year:

• Lawmakers placed SCR 1611 on the Aug. 4, 2026 ballot to abolish merit selection and elect Kansas Supreme Court justices.

• September hook: Gov. Kelly’s pick Larkin Walsh was sworn in Sept. 17, 2025—a merit-based appointment to fill a recent vacancy.

• Nationally, state-court races are now $100M slugfests. (see: Wisconsin). That’s a very probable outcome if Kansas’ supreme court nomination process turns into partisan elections.

• A federal judge upheld a new Kansas law, effective July 1, that prohibits “foreign nationals” from contributing to campaigns for or against state constitutional amendments, rejecting a lawsuit claiming it violates free speech. “Foreign” in this context means “not from Kansas.”

Taken together, these moves show Kansas inching toward high-stakes, big-money judicial battles.

Both sides are preparing for an expensive battle

On the pro-election side, Americans for Prosperity backed SCR 1611 in March and has kept up the drumbeat since Walsh’s appointment. On the keep-merit side, civil-rights groups and legal orgs (e.g., ACLU Kansas, Kansas Appleseed) have been barn-storming panels and prepping a coalition. Expect formal ballot committees to register this fall as donors test messages in Johnson County.

This vote will define Kansas for a generation

State supreme courts now decide the biggest fights (think: abortion, voting rules, school finance) because federal courts keep punting decisions back to the states. In 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court reaffirmed state constitutional protection for abortion. Put justices on the ballot, and those rights become campaign planks.

If Kansas chooses to directly elect its justices, we’re not stepping into a polite civic forum. Wisconsin’s 2025 high-court race blew past $100 million—the most expensive judicial contest in U.S. history, fueled by national donors. Kansas will invite that model.

What you should do right now

• Read the fine print: The KLRD Supplemental Note on SCR 1611 spells out the ballot date, staggered terms, and the repeal of current limits on justices’ political activity. Know exactly what’s on offer.

• Watch the money: Bookmark HB 2206 (BillBee is useful here!) and scan new committee registrations and early donors through the fall. It’s the best tell on strategy.

• Demand specifics: Ask lawmakers now how they plan to implement this—partisan vs. “nonpartisan” ballots, contribution limits, recusal rules. If they can’t answer, assume Wisconsin-style rules are coming.

• JoCo readers: Expect media saturation. Prep your civic groups for fact-first forums; don’t outsource the conversation to Super PAC mailers.

September’s swearing-in of Walsh turned a process story into an election story. Proponents point to a “liberal court”; opponents point to a working merit system that just produced another qualified justice. Either way, the fight is on.

Meanwhile, Kansas’ new foreign-national rule is in effect, with enforcement guidance underway. Translation: some national dollars may route through different vehicles, but the arms race is still coming.

Kansas impact (policy stakes)

A sampling of key issues that will be in the crosshairs for the state supreme court to rule on include:

• Abortion: The court’s 2022 decision reaffirmed a state constitutional right; elected justices will face direct political pressure (and would be much more likely to institute an abortion ban).

• Voting rules: Disputes over advance-ballot deadlines, registration groups, and signature-matching land at the court. Elections for justices pull those outcomes into campaign season.

• School finance: Any post-2026 funding formula fight likely ends up at the court. Turning justices into candidates increases incentives to litigate for leverage.

Kansas doesn’t live in a vacuum. The national push to punish speech and weaponize state power is the backdrop for SCR 1611. Voters here will decide whether to embed that model into our courts.