Between us, we spent more than three decades leading the highest courts of Kansas and Texas. We came to the bench through different systems, served in different political environments and do not agree on every legal or political question.

But we agree on this: Kansans should reject the proposed constitutional amendment to replace the state’s merit-based system with partisan, money-driven elections for the Kansas Supreme Court.

One of us, retired Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, was selected through the battle-tested system Kansas has used since 1958. A nonpartisan commission of community members and lawyers investigated and interviewed me and 17 other applicants, evaluated our applications, and nominated three qualified candidates. From those three, a Republican governor appointed me to the bench. After joining the court, I remained accountable to Kansas voters through three statewide retention elections.

The other, Retired Chief Justice Thomas Phillips, served on a court chosen through partisan elections in Texas. Although I was initially appointed to fill my predecessor’s unexpired term, I was nominated in four Republican primaries and elected by the people in four contested elections. But throughout my judicial career — like my successors as Texas chief justice — have always believed that political parties and large campaign contributions should play no role in judicial selection.

We have seen both systems up close. Kansas has the better one by a mile.

Supreme Court justices are not politicians. They do not represent political parties, campaign platforms or special interests. Their duty is to apply the law fairly, protect the constitutional rights of every person who has entered a courtroom and decide each case on its individual merits.

That responsibility becomes harder when justices are forced to campaign like politicians to earn or retain their seats. Contested judicial elections require candidates to raise money, seek political endorsements and communicate with voters about why they should win

Contested judicial elections can also invite enormous spending by political donors who only support a candidate because — once elected — the justice will rule the way the donor wants on issues. Recent state supreme court races elsewhere have shown how quickly judicial contests can become expensive, partisan proxy wars. Wisconsin’s 2025 Supreme Court race for just one seat attracted roughly $100 million in spending, much of it from out-of-state billionaires with agendas.

Advocates for the proposed Kansas constitutional amendment claim that these problems are just an unfortunate by-product of a bigger need: the right of Kansans to vote on who will judge them. But the current constitutional system strikes the right balance between accountability to the people and necessary judicial independence. The Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission publicly interviews and discusses all applicants and openly votes for three finalists based on their professional qualifications. The governor makes the final appointment. Kansas voters then decide in statewide retention elections whether each justice should remain on the bench, first after at least one year of judicial service and then every six years.

In short, the current Kansas system asks a critical first question: Who has the legal ability, experience, temperament and integrity to serve on the state’s highest court?

A contested election, however, asks a different set of questions: Who can raise the most money? Who can amass the strongest political power? Who can craft the most effective campaign advertisements? Those may be appropriate questions for candidates seeking political office, but they are not measures of judicial fitness.

The legitimacy of a court depends on public confidence that its decisions are based on the law, not campaign contributions, political affiliations, partisan pressure or fears of displeasing voters for the next election. Courts must sometimes make decisions that are unpopular with some or even most voters. That is not a failure of democracy. It is a key part of our constitutional system of checks and balances that keeps any one branch of government from becoming all-powerful, and serves in the long run to guard our freedoms and liberties.

We reached the bench by different routes. But our experiences lead us to the same conclusion: Kansas should not trade its independent judiciary for a political system. So, on Aug. 4, Kansans should vote no on the amendment and preserve the current system of merit selection of state Supreme Court justices.

_ _ _

Retired Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Lawton R. Nuss was appointed to the court in 2002 and served as chief justice from 2010 to 2019. He is a Salina native.

Retired Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips was initially appointed to the court as chief justice in 1988, where after winning four contested elections, he served until his retirement in 2004.