堪萨斯州选民将在周二就一项宪法修正案进行投票，该修正案将改变州最高法院法官的产生方式，从州长任命制改为由选民直接选举[1]。共和党支持者希望通过这一改变在2033年前在七人法院中选举至少四名持反堕胎立场的保守派法官[1]。这一议题的核心在于多年来法院的一系列判决，特别是2019年关于堕胎权的裁决[1]。
堪萨斯州总检察长克里斯·科巴赫曾在2022年表示，选举制度将"缓慢而悄悄地"在最高法院安置反堕胎法官[1]。州长劳拉·凯利（民主党籍）反对该措施，称将司法部门纳入这一体制的想法"令人恐惧"[1]。共和党人引用的法院近期裁决包括：地区法院法官本月恢复了三天邮寄选票宽限期；2025年禁止对跨性别未成年人进行性别肯定治疗的法律被法官阻止执行；2004年以来的多项教育资金相关判决[1]。
这场争论吸引了大量资金投入。支持改革的"是"阵营总支出370万美元，其中最大捐赠来自纳什维尔一家非营利组织的170万美元[1]。反对改革的"否"阵营总支出超过800万美元，计划生育组织贡献了160万美元[1]。堪萨斯州上次改变法官选举制度是在1958年；在此之前的近100年间，该州采用选举制[1]。全美22个州选举最高法院法官，其中8个采用党派制竞选[1]。
Kansas voters will decide Tuesday whether to change how the state selects its Supreme Court justices, shifting from gubernatorial appointment to popular election [1]. The constitutional amendment has become the focus of a high-stakes battle between Republicans seeking to move the court rightward and Democrats concerned about politicizing the judiciary.
Republicans backing the measure aim to elect at least four conservative anti-abortion justices to the seven-member court by 2033 [1]. The push reflects years of tension over the court's decisions, particularly a 2019 ruling on abortion rights [1]. Attorney General Kris Kobach stated in 2022 that electing judges would "slowly and quietly" place anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court [1]. Governor Laura Kelly, a Democrat, opposes the amendment, calling the idea of "putting the judiciary into this dysfunctional system" frightening [1].
The campaign has drawn substantial spending from both sides. The "yes" campaign has spent approximately $3.7 million, with the largest donor being a Nashville-based nonprofit contributing $1.7 million [1]. The "no" campaign has spent more than $8 million, with Planned Parenthood contributing $1.6 million [1]. Kansas last reformed its judicial selection system in 1958, ending a period of nearly 100 years during which justices were elected [1]. Currently, 22 states across the country elect their Supreme Court justices, with eight using partisan contests [1].
Republicans have cited several court decisions as justification for the change, including a district judge's recent restoration of a three-day mail-in voting window, a judge's block on a 2025 law prohibiting gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender minors, and education funding rulings dating back to 2004 [1].