‘Coordinated effort’: Kansas Republican leaders have a plan to cancel the 2026 U.S. Senate election
From left, Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, who is running for governor, appears with U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall at a Feb. 3, 2025, news conference in Topeka. (Photo by Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)
This was the plan all along.
That’s my strong suspicion after reading about and reporting on Senate Bill 105, a Kansas law passed last year that appears to give Republican power brokers a get-out-of-jail free card in this year’s U.S. Senate race.
As reported Wednesday by Kansas Reflector, the law’s text grants any Senate appointee a free two-year trial period before having to face voters. The bill’s ostensible purpose was to prevent Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly from appointing a Democrat to replace Republican U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, but the clause in question was added to the bill after its introduction.
It reads: “If the vacancy occurs on or after May 1 in an even-numbered year, then such vacancy shall be filled by election at the election of representatives in congress held two years following the year in which such vacancy occurs.”
Sounds bad, right? If Marshall were to leave for a Trump administration post — say secretary of Health and Human Services — does state law effectively cancel the fall U.S. Senate election? One assumes the Constitution would stand in the way. On the other hand, who among us trusts the U.S. Supreme Court?
Questions swirl in the murky waters of speculation, but one fact is clear as day.
This bill was passed as intended by Kansas legislative leadership and Marshall’s team.
I was told that on Thursday by Democratic Rep. Kirk Haskins of Topeka, who served both on the House Elections Committee that considered the bill and its conference committee.
“This was a coordinated effort not only amongst House and Senate leadership but it was driven from demands from the federal level and Roger Marshall’s office specifically,” Haskins said.
Haskins pointed to the overall trend in the Kansas Statehouse over 2025 and 2026 to restrict and limit the voices of voters, rather than empower them. The goal, as I wrote in January, appears to be putting the state’s thumb on the scale for Republicans.
“They again changed the rules to try to control who stays in power, and they took away the three-day grace period” for mail-in ballots, Haskins said. “They wanted signatures on mail-in ballots. They try to redistrict. I mean, this whole thing is corrupt and coordinated.”
Those are strong words from a normally mild-mannered legislator.
But as we approach the primary and general elections, the winds of conspiracy have begun to blow again. President Donald Trump and GOP influencers have cast doubt on results in California. States Newsroom’s Jonathan Shorman has documented the administration’s determination to dominate state election offices on flimsy pretexts.
Voters, be they Democrats or Republicans, deserve the opportunity to make their own choices. Sometimes they will vote for conservatives. Sometimes they will vote for liberals. Elected leaders should stay out of the way when setting the rules.
Back to SB 105. There’s no question, according to former U.S. Attorney for Kansas Barry Grissom, that the law as interpreted above would be unconstitutional.
“Considering whether the Kansas Legislature can ‘extend’ Marshall’s term by putting the seat in another ‘Class’ is not a close or debatable question,” he told me. “Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, fixes the class structure as a matter of constitutional text, and no state legislature has any delegated power — under the 17th Amendment or otherwise — to reassign a seat from one class to another.”
He continued: “Under the Supremacy Clause, a state statute (or any application of one) that had the practical effect of moving Marshall’s seat off its Class II cycle would be unconstitutional and without legal effect. SB 105 cannot do this; no Kansas Legislature could amend SB 105 to do this, and no other mechanism available to a state legislature could do this.”
Grissom noted the Legislature has “broad latitude” when deciding how and when to fill vacancies, but only within the preexisting constitutional structure.
Open and shut? Perhaps. But I’m left with a gnawing fear about what coming months may bring.
Marshall’s office offered a conspicuous non-denial denial: “Senator Marshall will be running for reelection,” chief of staff Brent Robertson said.
Fine. But things change. What if Robert F. Kennedy steps aside and Marshall takes his place in August or September? That Senate seat would need filling. Statehouse leaders should be expected to follow their own law, and they would undoubtedly pick close GOP allies to fill the role (they’re required to present Kelly with three names).
Once former Gov. Jeff Colyer or someone else takes the Senate seat, why wouldn’t the same leaders who shepherded the bill through try handing him two years of on-the-job training? It would certainly take the sting out off leaving the governor’s race!
None of this makes Kansas better or safer or more economically vibrant. None of this gives Kansans more of a voice or a right to conduct their own affairs. We are left to contemplate a clique of officials betraying their own party and principles, all for the sake of a dubious leg up in November.
Or as Haskins put it: “Nowhere did they actually promote the importance of individuals going out and practicing their right to vote. It was all restrict. It was all fear. That’s it. It’s like, how do we maintain our power?”
Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, 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.