The August 4th referendum taught us many things about Kansans: We are thoughtful voters who take a serious eye to constitutional propositions. We care deeply about the right to due process and fair judicial administration. We believe that a system of checks and balances is more important than ideological ambition.
Another takeaway from the 2026 primary election is that the proposed amendment and the messaging that surrounded it were confusing. When the legislature poses a constitutional question to the people of Kansas, the amendment language is supplemented by an explanatory statement. Article 14, section 1 of the Kansas Constitution prescribes that the statement must be “nontechnical” and express “the intent or purpose of the proposition and the effect of a vote for and a vote against the proposition.”
Kansans on both sides of the issue voiced frustration with the perplexing language of the amendment and were unsure of its intended effect. Proponents warned that maintaining the status quo would protect the alleged “elites” in control of the Kansas Supreme Court. They even inserted this sentiment into the explanatory statement, twice mentioning the nominating commission “consists of a majority of lawyers.” Meanwhile, opponents countered that the present judicial selection system insulates the Court from ideological and financial influence and changing it would turn the judiciary into another partisan branch.
Those conflicting messages left some voters understandably confused about which decision was better for the state. All constitutional propositions ought to be meticulously considered by voters because the consequences of their collective decision may last generations. But their deliberations should not be intentionally muddled by cryptic explanatory statements.
Primaries are also an inappropriate election for referendums. Turnout is low relative to general elections. The average turnout rate in the even-numbered primaries since 2016 is 30.14%. In 2026, it was 30.5%. Comparatively, the average general election turnout in the same period is 57.5%. One reason for the suppressed turnout in primaries is that nearly one-third of registered Kansans are normally unable to participate.
Kansas has a closed primary system, meaning that only registrants who affiliate with the Democratic or Republican parties may normally participate. Unaffiliated and third-party registrants, who comprise 30% of the electorate, are not eligible to vote in primaries unless a special question appears on the ballot, such as a constitutional proposition.
Becoming a habitual voter requires recurring electoral opportunities. A closed-primary system denies unaffiliated and third-party voters the chance to build that habit. So when a constitutional question is snuck onto a primary ballot, it’s a blatant attempt to circumvent a large swath of Kansans.
The language of explanatory statements should be unbiasedly clear, and the timing of referendums should invite broad participation.
The upcoming 2026 general election and the new biennium starting in January 2027 will bring an opportunity for fresh ideas in Kansas politics. Lawmakers should use this window to enact two good-governance reforms inspired by Kansans’ frustration with the 2026 constitutional question: (1) create a nonpartisan, or less partisan, system for drafting, amending, and approving explanatory statements, and (2) require that all constitutional propositions going forward be placed on the general election ballot of even-numbered years.
The latter reform is pretty straightforward. However, the first reform is more complex and necessitates political courage. Under the current referendum process, legislators have full control of writing, editing, and approving constitutional propositions, including the explanatory statements. In recent years, they have used this power to present deceptive summaries to voters and bias their decisions. Kansans deserve impartial clarity when asked to make constitutional decisions. Legislators should craft a process that largely removes themselves from writing explanatory statements and mitigates ideological tendencies when they debate and revise it, and vote on final passage.
According to Fort Hays State University’s 2025 “Kansas Speaks” survey, 66% of Kansans are indifferent toward or unsatisfied with the state legislature’s performance. Perhaps instituting these reforms would be a good start in restoring the public’s confidence in their elected leaders.
