What I learned from serving on the Kansas Supreme Court nominating commission

Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Rosen delivers the State of the Judiciary Speech on Jan. 13, 2026, in the Kansas House. (Photo by Morgan Chilson/Kansas Reflector

When I accepted an appointment to the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission seven years ago, I expected to learn about judges. Instead, I learned about institutions.

The most effective institutions aren’t built around the people who happen to serve in them. They’re built to endure long after those people are gone.

As Kansans prepare to vote on whether to change our constitution and the way Supreme Court justices are selected, I’d like to share why serving on the commission gave me confidence in a system designed to evolve over time so that no single governor, administration or group permanently shapes its work.

When I joined the commission, I was the only non-attorney member appointed by the current governor. The other three citizen commissioners had been appointed by then-Gov. Sam Brownback. Over the years, those members completed their service, new commissioners joined, and attorney members rotated as they were elected by their peers across Kansas.

The faces around the table changed. The purpose never did.

Regardless of who appointed us or how we came to serve, politics simply wasn’t part of our work together. Kansas law prohibits commissioners from considering a nominee’s race, religion, sex, political affiliation or a disability. More importantly, every commissioner I served with genuinely respected that principle. Our discussions focused on experience, integrity, judicial temperament, legal ability and leadership. The question was always the same: Who is best prepared to serve the people of Kansas?

That consistency wasn’t accidental. It was built into the commission’s design. Attorneys elect one commissioner from each congressional district and a statewide chair. The governor appoints four non-attorney commissioners, one from each congressional district. Staggered four-year terms, limited to two terms, ensure that no single administration can quickly reshape the commission.

The checks and balances extend beyond the panel itself. We recommend three finalists, the governor appoints one, and that justice later stands before Kansas voters in a retention election. Responsibility is intentionally shared at every step.

When I first applied to serve, I was a rural mother active in my community who believed the best public decisions are made when people with different perspectives come together around the same table. What I came to appreciate was that good public service also depends on expertise. The commission intentionally combines both.

I’ve served on many hiring committees, and like any committee hiring for a highly specialized position, the commission brings together subject-matter experts and people who represent those the organization serves. In the case of this body, attorneys evaluate legal reasoning, judicial opinions and professional reputation. Non-attorneys contribute the perspective of the Kansans our courts ultimately serve. Together, those perspectives produce stronger decisions than either could alone.

The work is demanding.

Commissioners spend hundreds of volunteer hours reviewing extensive application materials, legal writing samples, references, background information and public comments before conducting hours of public interviews. By the time candidates appear before the commission, they are almost always exceptionally accomplished attorneys or judges, making the selection of just three finalists a difficult task.

This is why the claim that the commission is driven by politics does not reflect my experience. I never heard commissioners discuss partisan politics, and I never interviewed an applicant who suggested political connections played any role in the process. 

When I first joined the commission, I wrote a newspaper column to provide transparency about how Kansas selects Supreme Court justices. Seven years later, I still have confidence in the integrity of that process, but I’ve also learned something bigger.

Good institutions aren’t built because we trust people. They’re built because we know people change.

The staggered terms, elected attorney commissioners, gubernatorial appointments and voter retention elections all reflect a system intentionally designed to outlast politics. For me, that became the commission’s greatest strength. It was never about any individual commissioner or elected official. It was about an institution built to ensure that no one person or political moment could define it.

Serving on the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission has been one of the greatest privileges of my civic life. I am grateful for the opportunity to have represented everyday Kansans in this important constitutional responsibility, but I know I am just one of many public servants entrusted with this work over the years. My hope is that the commission endures as it was designed — bringing together citizens and attorneys in service to an independent and impartial judiciary for the people of Kansas.

Frances Graves lives in Bartlett and works as the Kansas Agriculture and Rural Leadership program manager and facilitator and as a Kansas State University Research and Extension Community Vitality state specialist. Through its opinion section, the Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.