#judges

carnegieendowment.org

Five Years After His Power Grab, Tunisia’s President Has Only Achieved Failure

Saied’s main accomplishment has been to destroy a decade’s worth of democratic progress.

jasonbeets.blogspot.com

Protect the Kansas Supreme Court – Vote No on Aug. 4

Next month, Kansas voters will decide how the state will select members of the Kansas Supreme Court, going forward. A proposed constitutional amendment would replace the state’s current merit-based system, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, with direct elections for members of the Kansas Supreme Court. Voters will decide whether to adopt or reject the proposed state constitutional amendment during the Kansas Primary on Tuesday, Aug. 4. I encourage voters to reject the proposed constitutional amendment and keep the current system in place. Whether or not you find my arguments persuasive, I hope this editorial helps you understand the importance, and potential consequences, of this important decision. The Current System There are seven positions on the Kansas Supreme Court. Once a vacancy arises, lawyers and judges who would like to serve on the court submit applications to the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission. The Commission reviews the applications, and interviews and vets candidates who are interested in the job. The Commission selects three nominees, and the Governor appoints one of those three candidates to serve on the Kansas Supreme Court. After their first year on the court, a new Justice will run in an unopposed retention election, where voters will decide whether or not the Justice should continue to serve on the court. If the public chooses to retain the Justice, the Justice will run in subsequent retention elections every six years. The Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission is composed of five attorneys and four members appointed by the governor. The five attorneys on the Commission are elected by members of the Kansas Bar Association. One is elected in each of the four Kansas congressional districts, and the Chairman of the Commission is selected in a statewide election. The four members of the Commission appointed by the governor are non-lawyers, and one is selected from each Kansas congressional district. The current merit-based selection process was created by a state constitutional amendment adopted by Kansas voters in 1958. This process was used to appoint Larkin Walsh to the Kansas Supreme Court in 2025. This process was used to fill another vacancy on the court this year. In May, the Commission has chose three finalists for the position. On July 13, Gov. Laura Kelly (D) appointed Johnson County District Court Judge K. Christopher Jayaram to the Kansas Supreme Court. You can watch the Commission interview candidates for the Kansas Supreme Court on YouTube. Caption: The Seal of the Kansas Supreme Court features scales, a common symbol in legal imagery. A Republican-Backed Amendment Last year, Republicans in the Kansas Legislature voted to advance a proposed constitutional amendment that would replace the current merit-based process for selecting members of the Kansas Supreme Court, with direct elections. To amend the Kansas Constitution, an amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the members of both chambers of the Kansas Legislature and by a majority of voters. Republicans hold two-thirds supermajorities in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature. The constitutional amendment received the exact number of votes needed in both chambers, and only Republicans voted in favor of the amendment. The Kansas Senate approved the constitutional amendment on March 6, 2025. There are 40 members of the Kansas Senate. A proposal must receive 27 votes to achieve a two-thirds majority in the Kansas Senate. 27 Senators voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, and 13 voted against. 27 Republicans voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, and 4 Republicans voted against. The Republicans who voted against the amendment were Mike Argabright, Elaine Bowers, William Clifford, and Brenda Dietrich. All 9 Democrats in the Kansas Senate voted against the constitutional amendment. The Kansas House approved the constitutional amendment on March 19, 2025. There are 125 members of the Kansas House. A proposal must receive 84 votes to achieve a two-thirds majority in the Kansas House. 84 members of the Kansas House voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, 40 voted against, and 1 was absent. 84 Republicans voted in favor of the amendment, and 4 Republicans voted against. The Kansas House Republicans who voted against the constitutional amendment were Jesse Borjon, Angel Roeser, Mark Schreiber, and Sean Willcott. 36 Democrats voted against the constitutional amendment, and 1 Democrat, Louis Ruiz, was absent. Kansas voters will vote on the proposed constitutional amendment during the Kansas Primary on Tuesday, Aug. 4. If a majority votes in favor of the amendment by voting yes, the current system for appointing Kansas Supreme Court Justices would be replaced by direct elections. If a majority votes against the amendment by voting no, the current system for appointing Kansas Supreme Court Justices will remain in place. Next, let’s take a look at what the proposed system for direct elections to the Kansas Supreme Court would like like. The Proposed System If voters approve the proposed constitutional amendment, Kansas Supreme Court Justices would be directly elected. Multiple candidates could run for the same position on the court. Kansas Supreme Court Justices would be elected to six-year terms. Candidates for the Kansas Supreme Court would raise money and campaign for office in the same way as candidates running to be governor, senator, or a member of the Kansas Legislature. Under the proposed system, the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission would be abolished. Initial elections for the seven positions on the Kansas Supreme Court would be staggered, so not all seven seats would appear on the ballot at once. Three positions would be up for election in 2028. Two positions would be up for election in 2030. Two positions would be up for election in 2032. Each position would then be up for election at the end of its six-year term. According to the proposed amendment, the rules that would govern elections to the Kansas Supreme Court, and which positions would be up for election in which year, will be, “provided by law.” In practice, this means the Republican Supermajority in the Kansas Legislature would determine these matters, if voters approve the amendment. Partisan vs. Nonpartisan elections If voters approve the amendment, one of the unanswered questions that would be answered by the Kansas Legislature, is whether elections for the Kansas Supreme Court would be partisan or nonpartisan elections. In partisan elections, candidates run as Democrats or Republicans, alongside a party label on the ballot. In nonpartisan elections, candidates don’t run as Democrats or Republicans, and their names are not accompanied by a party label on the ballot. If Republicans in the Legislature want to maximize the chances that their preferred candidates are elected, they could decide that elections for the Kansas Supreme Court will be partisan. Earlier this year, in “How competitive is Kansas?”, I discussed how often Republicans and Democrats win statewide Kansas elections for various positions, based on past election results. For almost all positions, Republicans regularly outperform Democrats in statewide Kansas elections, with the exception of elections for governor, where Democrats and Republicans are fairly evenly matched. But what would nonpartisan elections for the Kansas Supreme Court look like? I closely watched the nonpartisan elections for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2023, 2025, and 2026. The elections in 2023 and 2025 determined whether conservatives or liberals would hold a majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and they attracted significant national attention. The general elections in these three races each featured two candidates. While these elections were technically nonpartisan, one candidate always aligned with and was supported by Democrats, and the other candidate always aligned with and was supported by Republicans. So while these were technically nonpartisan elections, they were in practice elections between Democratic and Republican candidates, although these designations did not appear next to the names of the candidates on the ballot. The liberal candidates won each of the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections in 2023, 2025, and 2026, by more than 10%. Potential impacts of big money Many people are worried about the corrupting influence of money in politics. Wealthy people, powerful corporations, and well-financed special interests often spend large amounts of money to influence the outcome of important elections. Candidates running for elected judicial positions need to raise money to finance their campaigns, and their campaign advertising, just like candidates running in any other election. People and organizations that spend money on judicial campaigns might subsequently have interests that will be affected by judicial decisions. Judges could consider their ability to raise sufficient money in future elections, when deciding the outcome of important cases. Even if judges were able to completely ignore potential campaign fundraising impacts of their judicial decisions, public confidence in the integrity of their courts could still be compromised by the understanding that elected judges will need to raise money for their campaigns, if they decide to run for reelection. A recent Supreme Court election in Wisconsin shows that billionaires are willing to spend large sums of money to influence the outcome of judicial elections. Caption: Courts must weigh evidence, balance competing interests, and carefully consider the consequences of their decisions. It should come as no surprise that scales, like those held by Lady Justice, are common symbols in legal imagery. Out-of-state Billionaires The 2023 and 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court elections were the most expensive judicial elections in US history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The 2023 election cost $51 million, and the 2025 election cost more than $100 million. In 2025, Billionaire Elon Musk spent $25 million on the Wisconsin Supreme Court election in support of conservative candidate Brad Schimel, according to Newsweek. Musk’s investment failed to pay off, as liberal candidate Susan Crawford won the election by a margin of 10.1%. Liberal Billionaires George Soros and JB Pritzker donated large sums to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which provided money to Crawford’s campaign. Elon Musk doesn’t live in Wisconsin. Neither does George Soros or JB Pritzker. Elections that allow out-of-state billionaires to spend millions of dollars to back their preferred candidate might not be the best method to select state Supreme Court Justices. Although, in the interest of transparency, I should disclose that I donated $20 to support liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Janet Protasiewicz in 2023. And I raised $2.50 for liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford in 2025, through the Democratic Victory Fund. The amount that I donated and raised for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates if far less than the gigantic sums spent on the race by Musk, Soros, or Pritzker. But like Musk, Soros, and Pritzker, I also don’t live in Wisconsin. Problems with Electing Judges In 2015, John Oliver discussed the problems created by electing judges during a segment for his program LastWeekTonight. Oliver discussed how some ads in judicial campaigns fail to make substantive arguments relevant to the campaign, while others can be wildly misleading. Oliver also discussed how fundraising for judicial campaigns can create conflicts of interest. The Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks and analyzes State Supreme Court elections, discussed the problems that campaign spending on these races that create. “It’s no secret that big money in politics has transformed American elections,” the organization wrote on its website. “What is less understood, however, is that influence-seeking money has also made tremendous inroads into our courts—institutions that are constitutionally obligated to provide equal justice regardless of wealth, status, or political connections,” the organization continued. “Thirty-eight states conduct elections for their state supreme courts, powerful entities that are generally the final word on interpreting state law.” The Brennan Center found that many ads in State Supreme Court elections target judges in misleading ways for their decisions on the bench, particularly in connection to criminal cases. A History Lesson Supporters and opponents of the proposed constitutional amendment in Kansas make arguments based on Kansas History. So let’s briefly examine how Kansas has chosen its Supreme Court Justices in the past. This summary is based on primarily on information compiled by the Kansas Information Network. When Kansas became a state in 1861, its constitution required the direct election of Supreme Court Justices, who served six-year terms and ran in partisan elections. The governor could fill mid-term vacancies by appointment, until the next election. Kansas adopted its current merit-based system, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, in response to a scandal that took place in the 1950s. Kansas Governor Fred Hall lost his reelection bid in the 1956 Republican Primary. Both Hall and William Smith, the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court, resigned. Following Hall’s resignation, Lieutenant Governor John McCuish became Governor, and appointed Fred Hall to the Kansas Supreme Court. The event became known as the “Triple Play,” and sparked political backlash. In response, the Kansas Legislature and Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment creating the merit-based system, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, currently used today. That amendment was approved by voters in 1958. You can learn more about the history of the scandal that lead to the creation of Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission in an article published by Humanities Kansas. Under the proposed amendment to bring back direct elections for Kansas Supreme Court Justices, a different method has been proposed to fill mid-term vacancies than existed during Gov. Fred Hall’s Triple Play in the 1950s. Rather than filling these vacancies by an appointment from the governor, they would instead be “filled by election as provided by law.” A Consequential Decision Next, let’s examine the role played by the Kansas Supreme Court in Kansas Politics. Republicans have held veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature since 2011. This has given Republicans in the Legislature immense power in Kansas Politics. Kansas elected Laura Kelly, a Democrat, to be governor in 2018, and reelected her in 2022. A governor can veto legislation approved by the Republican Legislature. But if Republicans stick together, they can, and often do, override those vetoes. Laws approved by the Republican Legislature are subject to legal review by the Kansas Supreme Court, making the court a powerful player in the Kansas constitutional system. While it’s hard to predict how electing Kansas Supreme Court Justices might change how the court would rule on important matters, it’s worth engaging in informed speculation, nonetheless. Let’s consider how electing the Kansas Supreme Court could impact abortion rights, K-12 education spending, and transgender rights. Abortion Rights In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion. Kansas Republicans would absolutely end abortion rights in Kansas, if they could. But prior to the end of federal protection for abortion rights, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the right to abortion is protected by the Kansas Constitution. In April 2019, the court found the right to an abortion is implicitly protected by the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which states, “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In Jan. 2021, Republicans in the Kansas Legislature advanced a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have given the Legislature the legal authority to enact a restrictive abortion ban. In August 2022, Kansas voters decisively rejected the proposed amendment, 59% to 41%. The push to directly elect members to the Kansas Supreme Court is a direct successor of the anti-abortion amendment voters rejected four years ago. In September 2022, Kris Kobach, who was the Republican nominee for Kansas Attorney General at the time, proposed amending the Kansas Constitution to directly elect state Supreme Court Justices. Kobach told a group of Republicans that the change would clear a path for the state to “slowly and quietly” place anti-abortion judges on the Kansas Supreme Court with the ultimate goal of overturning the 2019 decision that found the state constitution protects abortion rights, according to the Wichita Eagle. Kobach said the decision threw, “a huge wrench into the works” of the anti-abortion movement in Kansas. “Now, there are two ways to deal with that,” Kobach said. “There are two paths. One is to come in with a state constitution amendment that corrects the decision. That’s what we just tried to do, and it didn’t work out. But there’s another path.” In 2022, Kris Kobach (R) was elected Kansas Attorney General by a margin of 1.6%. Kobach is running for reelection this year, in a rematch against Chris Mann (D), the same candidate he ran against in 2022. Kris Kobach supports the proposed constitutional amendment to directly elect Kansas Supreme Court Justices. If voters approve the amendment, abortion rights will be front and center in every election for the Kansas Supreme Court. Abortion rights are popular in Kansas, but other considerations could lead voters to vote in favor of Supreme Court candidates opposed to abortion rights. Voters might vote for a candidate, because they are running as a Republican in a partisan election, or they may chose to prioritize other issues that lead them to prefer conservative candidates for the State Supreme Court. Both supporters and opponents of direct elections for Kansas Supreme Court Justices believe that if the judicial election amendment is approved, it would be more likely for the State Supreme Court’s decision protecting abortion rights to be overturned, than if the current system remains in place. Education Funding The Kansas Constitution states, “the legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.” Previously, school districts have sued the State of Kansas for failing to provide sufficient funding for K-12 education in the state. The Kansas Supreme Court has, at times, determined the Kansas Legislature has failed to constitutionally fund K-12 education. The Court considers whether K-12 education funding is adequate and equitable, and has sometimes determined that the Legislature has failed to meet these constitutional requirements. It can be incredibly challenging to understand technical discussions and litigation surrounding K-12 education funding in Kansas. But long story short, Republicans would spend less on K-12 education in Kansas, if the Kansas Supreme Court would let them. Ty Masterson, the President of the Kansas Senate, is running as a Republican for Kansas Governor. Last year, Masterson told a group of Republicans that if the proposed constitutional amendment is approved, the Kansas Supreme Court will stop requiring the Legislature to spend more on education, according to the Marion County Record. "If we elect our Supreme Court, they won’t force you to spend money on schools,” Masterson said. Ty Masterson supports directly electing Kansas Supreme Court Justices. Donald Trump has endorsed Ty Masterson in the Kansas Governor’s race. In decisions made by Justices selected by the current system, the Kansas Supreme Court has sometimes ruled against the Legislature for failing to adquately and equitably fund K-12 education in Kansas. Those who support the Court’s ability to do so support keeping the current Kansas Supreme Court selection process in place. Those who believe the Legislature, rather than the Courts, should decide how much to spend on K-12 education, want to directly elect State Supreme Court Justices, instead. Transgender Rights Earlier this year, the Kansas Legislature approved a draconian anti-trans bill. Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the bill, but Republicans in the Kansas Legislature overrode Kelly’s veto, passing the bill into law. The law prevents transgender people from obtaining identity documents that reflect their gender identity and makes it illegal for them to use certain restrooms and locker rooms. The law prevents transgender Kansans from obtaining state-issued identity documents that display their gender identity, rather than their biological sex assigned at birth. The law invalidated existing drivers licenses and birth certificates, held by transgender Kansans, that identified them based on their gender identity, and required these documents to be changed to display their sex assigned at birth. The law also made it illegal for transgender Kansans to use restrooms and locker rooms in government buildings, designed for multiple people to use, that are designated for members of the opposite sex. This means the law made it illegal for transgender girls and women to use women’s restrooms or locker rooms in government buildings designed for multiple people to use. And the law made it illegal for transgender boys and men to use men’s restrooms or locker rooms in government buildings designed for multiple people to use. People who violate this provision will be subject to a warning for their first offense, a $1,000 fine for their second offense, and a third or subsequent offense qualifies as a misdemeanor crime. Private individuals using restrooms or locker rooms that are entered by someone violating this provision may sue the person who entered the restroom or locker room for $1,000. Gov. Laura Kelly (D) vetoed this draconian bill, but Republicans in the Kansas Legislature overrode Kelly’s veto, passing the bill into law. To override a governor’s veto, a bill requires approval from two-thirds of the members of both chambers in the Kansas Legislature. 84 votes are required in the Kansas House, and 27 votes are required in the Kansas Senate. On Feb. 17, the Kansas Senate overrode Kelly’s veto. The bill received 31 votes, 4 more than it needed. All 31 Republicans in the Kansas Senate voted in favor of the anti-trans bill. All 9 Democrats in the Kansas Senate voted against the anti-trans bill. On Feb. 18, the Kansas House overrode Kelly’s veto. The bill received 87 votes, 3 more than it needed. 87 Republicans voted in the Kansas House voted in favor of the anti-trans bill. 1 Republican, Mark Schreiber, voted against the bill. 36 Democrats in the Kansas House voted against the anti-trans bill. 1 Democrat, Valdenia Winn, was absent. Transgender and Intersex Kansans, represented by the ACLU, are challenging the anti-trans law in court. The lawsuit challenges the law as a whole, as well as the drivers licence and restroom provisions, specifically. What does all this have to do with the method Kansas uses to select State Supreme Court Justices? In the distant future, after years and years of protracted litigation, the Kansas Supreme Court will likely eventually decide an important case concerning transgender rights, on the merits of the legal questions presented in the case. When that day finally comes, I believe the Kansas Supreme Court will be more likely to rule favorably towards a politically-disfavored minority group if its Justices don’t have to worry about how their decision could be used against them by opposing candidates, if they run for reelection. I believe the current system for selecting Justices, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, is more likely to incentivize Justices to rule fairly, based on the facts and the law, when deciding the outcome of important cases about transgender rights. The Kansas Model On Tuesday, Aug. 4, Kansas voters will decide how members of the Kansas Supreme Court will be chosen, going forward. They could choose to keep the current merit-based system, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, which protects the integrity of our Supreme Court from the influence of big-money campaign donors, and maintains public trust in the Court. Or they could choose to elect members of the Supreme Court, based on rules that will be subsequently chosen by Republicans in the Kansas Legislature. While we can’t know for sure what those elections would be like, we can make an informed guess based on how judicial elections work in other states. At worst, elections for the Kansas Supreme Court could attract million-dollar donations from out-of-state billionaires, who wish to determine the ideological balance of the court. Expensive campaigns could lead Justices to consider potential fundraising implications of their legal decisions that impact major campaign donors. Campaigns could be dominated by divisive and emotionally-charged political issues, with key rights on the line, based on the outcome of these races. Campaign ads could lack relevant information about the candidates or contain misleading and inflammatory claims about how judges have handled previous cases. Electing judges could result in the loss of abortion rights in Kansas, a reduction in spending for K-12 education, and worse outcomes for transgender rights. All of this is speculative, but it’s based on a fair understanding of the experiences of other states and of the dynamics of Kansas Politics. After researching judicial elections in other states, important decisions made by the Kansas Supreme Court, and the history that led to the current system, I believe the current merit-based method for selecting Supreme Court Justices is a wonderful system. Our current system, run by the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission, is a model other states should consider adopting to avoid the problems that can arise from direct elections for Supreme Court Justices. As Kansans, we should take pride in this “Kansas Model,” which has served the state well in the almost 70 years since Kansas voters adopted it in 1958. Caption: A close-up photo of a pin that displays the Kansas State Seal. The pin is part of my button collection. The current system works well, and we should keep it. VOTE NO on Tuesday, Aug. 4 to protect the integrity of the Kansas Supreme Court. I am raising money for Kansas United for Impartial Courts, which opposes direct elections for the Kansas Supreme Court. You can donate to this organization through Sunflower Democrats or the Democratic Victory Fund. Sunflower Democrats supports Democrats in Kansas, the Democratic Victory Fund supports Democrats nationwide. If you want to break the Republican Supermajority in the Kansas Legislature, you can donate to Sunflower Democrats, which raises money for Democrats running in competitive districts for the Kansas Legislature. Finally, if you appreciated this article, you can support my political coverage on Patreon.

open.substack.com

August 2, 2026

Friday’s dismissal of the Department of Justice case against David Hearn for vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool came days after Hearn’s lawyers asked for transcripts of the grand jury p...

apnews.com

Republicans want voters to elect Kansas Supreme Court justices and move court to the right

Kansas voters will decide Tuesday whether to elect state Supreme Court justices rather than have the governor appoint them.

substack.com

Raw America (@rawstory)

POWERFUL: Judges in Columbus, Ohio are marching in the streets today to denounce Trump’s attacks on the judiciary. They were inspired by Poland’s March of 1000 Robes, which called out authoritarian at...

www.techdirt.com

Federal Judges Chastise Trump’s Justice Department For “Unlawful,” “Unethical” And “Unseemly” Conduct

This story was originally published by ProPublica. Republished under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license. Across the country, federal judges are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth or uphold centuries-old legal norms. From Washington, D.C., to Rhode Island to Oregon, federal judges nominated by presidents from both parties, […]

www.techdirt.com

Federal Judges Chastise Trump’s Justice Department For “Unlawful,” “Unethical” And “Unseemly” Conduct

This story was originally published by ProPublica. Republished under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license. Across the country, federal judges are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth or uphold centuries-old legal norms. From Washington, D.C., to Rhode Island to Oregon, federal judges nominated...

www.theguardian.com

Inside the New York court where children face deportation without access to attorneys

About 20,000 unaccompanied minors will lose legal representation if the federal government ends a longstanding contract on Friday, kicking current problems into overdrive across US