Preparing for the 2026 Kansas Legislative Session: Accountability, Courts, and the Rule of Law
As the Kansas Legislature prepares to convene for the 2026 session, important issues such as the state budget, school finance, and taxes will once again take center stage. These topics directly affect Kansas families, businesses, and communities, and I encourage constituents to reach out with questions as the session unfolds. I will continue providing updates throughout the session here on the blog.
As we begin, however, there is an issue that deserves greater attention than it has received from the media.
The Kansas Supreme Court and Judicial Accountability
The Kansas Supreme Court continues to demonstrate why Kansans should vote “yes” on the constitutional amendment appearing on the August 2026 ballot. Passed by the Legislature during the 2025 session, this amendment would restore the ability of voters to elect Kansas Supreme Court justices—returning accountability to the people.
Kansas did not always appoint justices through the current system. Prior to 1958, Supreme Court justices were elected by voters. I believe returning to that model is necessary, particularly as Kansas now has one of the most liberal supreme courts in the nation.
SB 180 and the Courts’ Interpretation of Law
In 2023, the Kansas Legislature passed Senate Bill 180 (SB 180), commonly known as the Women’s Bill of Rights. The law defines “male” and “female” based on biological sex at birth and establishes a legal framework for distinguishing between sexes in areas such as athletics, prisons, and shelters. The intent of SB 180 is to protect health, safety, and privacy.
That same year, Kris Kobach filed a lawsuit against the Kansas Department of Revenue to prevent gender marker changes on driver’s licenses and require that licenses reflect sex assigned at birth. A district court initially issued a temporary restraining order halting such changes.
The Kansas Court of Appeals, however, overturned that ruling, determining the Attorney General had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in arguing that SB 180 required these restrictions. The Kansas Supreme Court declined to review the case. In a brief statement from Chief Justice Marla Luckert, the Court simply stated the petition was “considered and denied.”
This lack of explanation underscores a broader concern: courts increasingly substituting ideology for the law as written.
Redistricting and Political Context
Redistricting has dominated headlines, and while criticism of Republican actions is not entirely unfounded, the broader national context is often ignored. States like Illinois remain among the most aggressively gerrymandered in the country.
In August 2025, Laura Kelly openly encouraged Democratic governors to “respond in kind” to Republican-led redistricting efforts. Even Hakeem Jeffries acknowledged that California would not be the last Democratic state to do so.
Republicans won the 2024 election. The question remains: should we do nothing while others act decisively?
Moving Forward in Topeka
Redistricting will likely remain a focus for many legislators, and I will carefully review any proposals that emerge. However, we cannot allow politically driven court decisions to override laws passed by elected representatives. Basic human biology, legal clarity, and accountability must not be ignored.
As I return to Topeka, addressing SB 180 will remain a priority alongside the many other pressing issues facing Kansas. I look forward to representing you and appreciate the trust you have placed in me as your state representative.
