It invites big-money influence.

Judicial elections nationwide have become magnets for billionaire and corporate spending aimed at shaping court decisions. Kansas would likely face the same pressure, with outside donors pouring money into campaigns to support judges aligned with their interests instead of the public’s.

It replaces a system with a long track record.

Kansas’ current merit-based system uses the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission to recruit, evaluate, and recommend qualified candidates to the governor. Justices are then subject to nonpartisan retention elections. The process has been in place since 1958 and was designed to emphasize qualifications and judicial independence.

It sidelines qualified, independent candidates.

Running a statewide judicial campaign can cost millions of dollars. Judges and attorneys committed to independence — and unwilling to rely on political fundraising — could struggle to compete, leaving wealthy-backed candidates with a major advantage.

It could affect constitutional protections.

The Kansas Supreme Court has issued major rulings on issues such as school funding and reproductive rights based on its interpretation of the Kansas Constitution. Critics of Amendment 1 argue that an elected court could face greater political and donor pressure when deciding future constitutional cases.

It politicizes the judiciary.