Coverage spread: 2 sources — 1 left · 1 center
Lean ratings via AllSides / Media Bias-Fact-Check. How this works.
Where they agree
- Kansas voters rejected the GOP-referred constitutional amendment to allow direct election of state Supreme Court justices.
- Both outlets frame the outcome as a setback for conservatives unhappy with the court’s rulings, including on abortion.
- Both note that under current law the governor appoints justices, who then face retention elections.
Where they differ
- NBC News provides extensive detail on ad spending (over $12 million, with opponents outspending supporters 2-to-1) while The Hill omits financial figures entirely.
- NBC News traces the measure’s political origins to AG Kris Kobach’s years-long advocacy; The Hill does not mention Kobach or the measure’s backstory.
- NBC News includes direct quotes from campaign ads on both sides and cites the Brennan Center’s count of 21 states with judicial elections; The Hill’s account is a brief news brief without these specifics.
- The Hill cites Decision Desk HQ as its projection source while NBC News cites the Associated Press.
What voters decided
Kansas voters on Tuesday rejected a Republican-backed constitutional amendment that would have scrapped the state’s current judicial selection system in favor of direct, contested elections for state Supreme Court justices, according to projections from the Associated Press and Decision Desk HQ. The measure was placed on the ballot by the GOP-controlled Kansas Legislature.
Under the system that will now remain in place, the governor — Democrat Laura Kelly since 2019 — appoints Supreme Court justices from a shortlist assembled by a nine-member nonpartisan commission. Once appointed, justices face a retention vote from the public after their first year in office and then every six years after that. The rejected amendment would have replaced this process with contests that looked more like partisan elections for other statewide offices.
Why Republicans pushed the measure
The effort followed a string of rulings from the Kansas Supreme Court that frustrated conservatives, most notably a 2019 decision finding that the state constitution protects the right to an abortion. Kansas voters themselves later reaffirmed that stance in 2022, rejecting a separate ballot measure that would have stripped abortion protections from the constitution, after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach, who previously served as Kansas secretary of state, has pushed for direct judicial elections since at least 2019 and continued advocating for the change as recently as 2022, according to Democratic operatives cited by NBC News, who argued the amendment’s real aim was to reshape a court seen as too liberal — even though campaign ads for the measure avoided mentioning abortion or other hot-button issues directly.
The money and the messaging
The campaign around the amendment drew more than $12 million in television ad spending, according to tracking firm AdImpact, with opponents of the measure outspending supporters by better than 2-to-1. The largest group opposing the amendment, Kansas United for Impartial Courts, ran ads arguing that a “no” vote would keep judges from turning into politicians and would block billionaire donors from buying influence over the court — a reference to the flood of outside money, including from Elon Musk, that has poured into recent nonpartisan state Supreme Court races in Wisconsin.
On the other side, Kansans for Democracy Inc., the biggest funder backing the amendment, ran ads attacking the current nominating commission as an opaque process controlled by “elites” who pick justices “behind closed doors, trading favors, rewarding friends” while leaving voters “completely cut out.” Supporters framed the measure as a matter of giving citizens more direct say in who sits on the state’s highest court. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law notes that 21 states already allow voters to directly elect their supreme court justices, a point proponents used to argue Kansas was out of step.
How the coverage compares
NBC News offers the deepest account, laying out the appointment-and-retention system, the abortion-rulings backdrop, the ad spending totals, and direct quotes from campaign ads on both sides, along with the political history tying Kobach to the push for elected justices. The Hill’s coverage is far shorter, essentially confirming the same outcome — that Kansas rejected the measure — and framing it plainly as a setback for conservatives displeased with the court’s leanings, without detailing the ad spending, the specific ballot mechanics, or the Kobach backstory.
Why this matters beyond Kansas
The vote keeps Kansas among the states where a governor-driven, commission-vetted appointment system determines who sits on the highest court, rather than adopting the kind of contested elections used in 21 other states. The debate reflects a broader national tension over how much partisan politics and outside money should shape state judiciaries, with Wisconsin’s expensive, high-profile state Supreme Court races often cited as a cautionary example. Kansas’s decision to preserve its current system, at least for now, closes off — for the moment — one avenue Republicans had pursued to gain more direct influence over a court that has ruled against them on abortion and other issues.
Sources
Featured photo: Nils Huenerfuerst via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 4.0)