Representative Blake Carpenter

This is unacceptable.

Derby High School is a part of the district I represent, and I am extremely disappointed by what has been reported about this yearbook.

A yearbook should be something students can keep for the rest of their lives. It should preserve memories of their classmates, teachers, activities, athletics, accomplishments, and the moments that defined their time in high school. It should not become a vehicle for partisan political attacks.

I saw someone defend this by pointing out that the same student publication has published an article supporting fairness in women’s sports.

That is not the same thing.

A student newspaper exists to report news, publish opinions, debate issues, and cover current events. People read the article and move on.

A yearbook is different. Students carry it with them for decades. It moves from their childhood bedroom to their first home, and eventually becomes something they show their children and grandchildren. It is supposed to be a permanent record of their high school experience.

Using that permanent record to push political attacks against President Trump, Charlie Kirk supporters, Christians, ICE, or any other political or religious group crosses a line.

The district says these decisions were made by student editors and do not represent the official views of Derby Public Schools. That does not mean parents and taxpayers cannot question whether this was appropriate for a yearbook.

And then liberals wonder why so many conservative parents are losing confidence in public schools and looking for alternatives for their children.

Our public schools should be places where students of every political viewpoint feel welcome. Their yearbook should bring them together around the memories they made. It should not divide them by politics.

This was wrong, and everyone involved should recognize that.

Kansas High School Defends Anti-Trump, Anti-Charlie Kirk Yearbook - Todd Starnes There’s big trouble brewing at Derby High School in Kansas. The annual school yearbook is filled with all sorts of […]

Big court WIN on suppressors today!

Over the past several months, many people have asked me who I was supporting for Governor. Throughout the Republican primary, I made a conscious decision not to endorse a candidate. Instead, I answered questions, shared information about each campaign, and believed Republican voters deserved the opportunity to make that decision for themselves.

Now that the primary is over, it’s time to unite and focus on the future of Kansas.

I’m proud to endorse Ty Masterson for Governor.

I’ve had the privilege of serving alongside Ty for many years. While he served in the Kansas Senate and I served in the House, his Senate district overlapped much of the district I represent. I’ve had the opportunity to work with him on conservative priorities, and I’ve seen firsthand his commitment to defending our values, standing up for taxpayers, protecting constitutional freedoms, and fighting for limited government.

Ty is a proven conservative leader who understands how the Kansas Legislature works because he’s been in the trenches with us. That experience matters. It means he can hit the ground running and build the partnerships necessary to deliver real results for Kansas families.

Kansas has tremendous potential, but we need bold leadership to continue cutting taxes, defending our freedoms, supporting law enforcement, protecting life, strengthening our schools, and growing our economy. I believe Ty Masterson is the right person to lead that effort.

Elections can be competitive, but they eventually come to an end. Now is the time to come together, rally behind our Republican nominee, and work toward a stronger, more prosperous Kansas.

I’m proud to stand with Ty Masterson and ask for your support as our next Governor of Kansas.

The voters have spoken, and I respect the outcome. But I have no intention of pretending that Kansas suddenly has a fair judicial selection system because one election went against us.

It does not.

The constitutional amendment failed. The need for judicial reform did not.

Kansas remains the only state where a small group of attorneys exercises extraordinary influence over who sits on our Supreme Court while everyday Kansans have very little say. That is not the model I believe best serves our state.

Throughout this debate, many Kansans asked why we do not use a system more like the federal model, or at least adopt a commission where citizens hold the majority instead of attorneys. Those ideas deserve serious consideration because they would be a substantial improvement over the system we have today.

If our ideas are right, we should not abandon them because we lost one election. Constitutional government is not measured by one night’s vote. We will keep making the case that Kansans deserve a judicial selection system that gives citizens a greater voice than a handful of attorneys.

I know there will be people who say this debate is over and that those of us who support reform should simply move on. I disagree. If we believe the current system is unaccountable, then we have a responsibility to continue advocating for something better.

This conversation is far from over. I look forward to advancing additional judicial reforms that restore accountability, increase transparency, and give the people of Kansas a stronger voice.

One election settles the result. It does not settle the principle. I will continue fighting for a judiciary that is accountable to the people it serves.

Polls are open, but they close at 7:00 PM. If you haven’t voted yet, there’s still time to make your voice heard.

Every election matters, and every vote counts.

Have you voted yet?

Funny how “billionaire influence” is only a problem when voters get more power.

Today, millions of dollars from national organizations and out-of-state interests are being spent to preserve the current Kansas Supreme Court selection system.

They aren’t spending that money because they want less influence. They’re spending it because they prefer the current process.

The question on August 4 isn’t whether money exists in politics. It already does.

The question is whether Kansans—not a small group of insiders—should have the final say on who serves on our highest court.

I trust the people of Kansas. That’s why I’m voting YES.

Follow the money.

A big thank you to Earl Glynn for putting these campaign finance numbers together.

Here are the facts:

✅ Vote YES expenditures: $3,689,425

❌ Vote NO expenditures: $8,428,688

That is a difference of $4.74 million.

The Vote NO campaign has also raised nearly three times as much money as the Vote YES campaign.

The same people warning that “special interests” will influence our courts are spending millions to keep the current system exactly as it is.

The money tells the story. Those benefiting from the current system are spending millions to make sure it never changes.

Vote YES. Put the decision where it belongs, with the people of Kansas.

The Declaration of Independence wasn’t just about declaring freedom from Great Britain. It was a warning about concentrated power.

Our Founders believed that no king, no ruling class, and no small group should hold unchecked control over the government.

That’s why they declared that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

That principle didn’t expire in 1776.

Today, Kansans face a simple question:

Who should have the final say in choosing those who serve on our state’s highest court?

A small commission made up of a majority of attorneys selected by other attorneys?

Or the people of Kansas?

For nearly the first 100 years of our state’s history, Kansans elected their Supreme Court justices. In 1958, that changed.

On August 4, the people—not politicians, not lawyers, not insiders—will decide whether that power should be returned to the citizens of Kansas.

The Founders rejected concentrated power because they understood that government works best when it remains accountable to the people.

Now it’s our turn to decide.

Vote YES on August 4. Let the people decide.