Opinion: Amending The Constitution

Kansas voters should approach any proposed constitutional amendment with caution, regardless of the issue. Our Constitution is intended to provide a stable framework for government, not to be revised whenever there is disagreement over public policy.

As voters consider changing the method of selecting Kansas Supreme Court justices, they should ask whether the proposed system offers a clear and lasting improvement over the current one. Every method of judicial selection has advantages and disadvantages. Changing the Constitution should require more than the promise of a different approach.

Constitutional amendments should be reserved for changes that are necessary, durable, and broadly beneficial. If reasonable people can conclude that either system has strengths and weaknesses, that alone should give us pause before rewriting the Constitution.

Whatever conclusion each voter reaches, the burden of proof should rest with those seeking to amend the Constitution. A constitutional change deserves more than dissatisfaction with the status quo—it should represent a demonstrably better path for Kansas.

Paul K. Wilson, DPM, FACPM

Wichita, KS

Originally submitted as a Letter to the Editor to The Wichita Eagle on July 16, 2026,