Kansas has not elected a Democrat to the United States Senate since 1932. In 2026, it has a Democratic candidate who deserves serious consideration.
The Centrist Independent Voter endorses Adam Hamilton over Republican incumbent Roger Marshall and Libertarian David Graham.
Hamilton is not a perfect match for us. Important questions remain about his broader foreign-policy views, including Ukraine and NATO, and we would like to hear considerably more from him about federal deficits, spending and entitlement reform. Some of his tax proposals also strike us as well-intentioned but poor policy.
Those reservations are real.
But elections require choices among the candidates actually running. On the questions that matter most to us in this race—respect for elections, congressional authority, independence from party leadership, trade, immigration, abortion and political temperament—Hamilton is substantially closer to the kind of senator we would like Kansas to send to Washington.
And where Hamilton has left important questions unanswered, Marshall’s record generally provides little reason to prefer him.
The 2020 Election
Roger Marshall’s conduct following the 2020 presidential election weighs heavily against his reelection.
After the January 6 attack on the Capitol, Marshall voted to sustain objections to the certified electoral votes of both Arizona and Pennsylvania. Only six senators voted to sustain the Arizona objection and seven voted to sustain the Pennsylvania objection. Marshall was among them in both cases. (U.S. Senate: Arizona; Pennsylvania)
He later voted against advancing legislation to establish an independent commission to investigate the January 6 attack. (U.S. Senate)
Hamilton says the 2020 election was legitimate and has promised to certify legitimate future election results even when his own party loses. We welcome that commitment, but accepting an election won by one’s own party is hardly evidence of unusual political courage. (Johnson County Post)
Marshall’s record is the important fact here. When his party lost a legitimate presidential election, he voted to reject valid electoral votes.
For the Centrist Independent Voter, respect for legitimate election results is a basic qualification for federal office.
Marshall failed that test.
Independence Matters
Hamilton has built much of his campaign around the claim that he would serve Kansas rather than simply become another reliable vote for a national political party.
That claim cannot be proven until he actually serves. But his life provides at least some reason to take it seriously.
Hamilton spent more than three decades leading the Church of the Resurrection, a large United Methodist congregation containing Republicans, Democrats and independents. Much of his public career has involved trying to keep people with very different political and theological views in conversation with one another.
As a Senate candidate, he says he would be beholden neither to the president nor to congressional leadership and promises regular in-person town halls across Kansas. (Johnson County Post)
Marshall has moved in the opposite direction. He has become a dependable defender of Donald Trump on many of the issues where we most want senators to exercise independent judgment.
Supporting a president of your own party is normal. Surrendering independent judgment to that president is not.
Marshall’s conduct after the 2020 election provides the strongest example, but it is not the only one.
The pattern also appears in his votes on some of President Trump’s most controversial nominees. Marshall voted to confirm Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense when Republican Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitch McConnell voted no. He supported Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services when McConnell opposed both nominations. He voted to confirm Kash Patel as FBI director when Collins and Murkowski voted no. And in August 2026 he voted to elevate Todd Blanche to Attorney General when Collins and Murkowski again opposed the nomination. (U.S. Senate: Hegseth, Gabbard, Kennedy, Patel, Blanche)
None of those votes by itself would determine our judgment of a senator. Senators of a president’s own party normally support most presidential nominees.
These nominees were not normal. They presented a mix of inadequate qualifications, questionable competence, and, in some cases, views or records that seemed counterproductive to the missions of the organizations they were nominated to oversee. When unusually controversial nominations repeatedly cause other senators of the president’s party to exercise independent judgment, a senator’s consistent refusal to do so becomes relevant evidence of how he understands his own role.
Marshall’s record gives us little confidence that he sees the Senate as an institution with responsibilities independent of the president.
Tariffs and Congressional Power
Hamilton opposes President Trump’s broad tariffs and describes them correctly as taxes ultimately borne by American consumers and businesses.
More importantly, he has proposed requiring congressional approval for future emergency tariffs. He argues that a president should not possess unchecked authority to impose what amounts to a tax on Americans. (Johnson County Post)
We strongly agree.
The Constitution gives Congress responsibility for taxation and foreign commerce. Congress has delegated substantial trade authority to presidents over many decades, but the sweeping use of emergency authority to impose tariffs has gone much too far. Our trade policy favors free trade while restoring greater congressional oversight of unilateral tariffs.
Marshall has been a strong supporter of Trump’s tariff policy and has praised Trump for using tariffs for both economic and national-security purposes. (Sen. Roger Marshall)
Kansas farmers have particular reason to understand the dangers of trade wars. They depend heavily on international markets while also buying fertilizer, machinery and other inputs whose costs can be increased by tariffs.
Hamilton has the better policy and, equally important, the better understanding of Congress’s institutional responsibility.
War Powers
The same issue arises more seriously when American lives are at stake.
Marshall voted against the March 2026 War Powers Resolution intended to reassert Congress’s authority over the conflict with Iran. He characterized the resolution as an attempt to interfere with the administration’s military operations and defended Trump’s actions. (Sen. Roger Marshall)
Hamilton has criticized the continuing Iran war and the costs it has imposed on Americans. (CNN)
We would like Hamilton to state more precisely what military actions he believes a president may undertake without prior congressional authorization. Presidents must retain the ability to respond to immediate threats and protect American forces.
But prolonged hostilities are different. The Constitution does not make the president the sole judge of whether the United States remains at war.
On this question, Hamilton’s instincts appear substantially closer to ours than Marshall’s demonstrated record.
Foreign Policy: Ukraine and NATO
Our reservation about Hamilton is broader than any single war or country. It concerns the role he believes the United States should play in the world.
We favor an engaged American foreign policy: strong alliances, credible deterrence, support for democratic partners, and a willingness to use American influence to preserve an international order that has served both our security and our prosperity. Engagement does not mean intervening everywhere, and military force should remain a last resort exercised within constitutional limits. But retreat from the world carries risks of its own.
Ukraine and NATO are important tests of that broader outlook.
We strongly support Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression and believe American support for Ukraine and NATO serves important U.S. national-security interests. The consequences extend beyond Europe. China and other potential aggressors are watching whether democracies have the patience and determination to resist territorial conquest.
We have not found a sufficiently clear statement from Hamilton explaining his position on continued military assistance to Ukraine, the American commitment to NATO, or more generally the degree of American international engagement he believes is necessary.
We would like one.
But this uncertainty does not create an advantage for Marshall.
Marshall opposed both major Ukraine-aid packages considered by the Senate in 2024, repeatedly describing additional assistance as a “blank check” and arguing that the United States should address its own border before providing further support to Ukraine. (Sen. Roger Marshall)
Marshall has not always opposed assistance to Ukraine. Earlier in Russia’s invasion he strongly urged the United States and its allies to provide Ukraine with weapons, argued that Ukraine could win the war and emphasized American leadership within NATO. (Sen. Roger Marshall)
His later retreat from substantial American assistance, however, leaves him significantly removed from our position.
Hamilton should clarify the broader foreign-policy principles that would guide him in the Senate. Until he does, this remains a reservation about our endorsement—not a reason to endorse Marshall instead.
Immigration
Hamilton’s approach to immigration is broadly compatible with ours.
He supports secure borders while also arguing that the United States needs a functioning legal immigration system capable of attracting the workers and students the American economy needs. He rejects treating immigrants generally as criminals and argues that enforcement can be both effective and humane. (Johnson County Post)
That combination—serious enforcement, expanded legal immigration and a practical approach toward people already established in the United States—is much closer to our immigration policy than the increasingly restrictive immigration policies embraced by much of the Republican Party.
We would still like more detail from Hamilton about what status he would offer long-term undocumented residents.
But the direction is right.
Health Care and Fiscal Policy
Health care presents a more mixed comparison.
Hamilton supports restoring Affordable Care Act premium subsidies, expanding Medicare drug-price negotiations and encouraging home-based care for seniors. (Johnson County Post)
Those proposals do not match our preferred health-care system of universal private insurance with carefully controlled public subsidies and incentives in the form of meaningful co-pays and deductibles.
Marshall, who is a physician, deserves credit for supporting greater health-care price transparency. His bipartisan Patients Deserve Price Tags Act would require hospitals and insurers to disclose prices so patients can compare costs before receiving care. (Sen. Roger Marshall)
Consumers should know what medical services cost before purchasing them whenever that is reasonably possible.
Hamilton also proposes tax credits for first-time homebuyers and for teachers, police officers and firefighters. (Johnson County Post)
We do not favor those ideas.
Worthwhile occupations should be compensated appropriately rather than receiving special treatment through the federal tax code. And subsidizing housing demand without increasing housing supply is likely to raise prices rather than solve the underlying problem.
More broadly, Hamilton has not yet said enough about federal deficits, debt and the long-run financing of Social Security and Medicare.
That matters to us. Our taxation, spending and debt policy calls for long-term fiscal balance and a simpler tax system with fewer special preferences.
But here too, Marshall has not established a compelling alternative. Expressions of concern about deficits are not enough. Republicans as well as Democrats have repeatedly supported tax and spending policies inconsistent with long-term fiscal balance.
We would like Hamilton to make fiscal responsibility a more prominent part of his campaign and, if elected, of his Senate career.
Our endorsement should not be read as approval of every item on his economic agenda.
Abortion
Hamilton’s approach to abortion is unusually thoughtful for a contemporary political campaign.
He opposed the 2022 Kansas constitutional amendment that would have permitted substantially greater abortion restrictions. At the same time, he speaks openly about the moral complexity of abortion and the value of unborn life.
He has argued that legislators should not become the personal ethicists or spiritual advisers of women facing extraordinarily difficult decisions. (The Washington Post)
That is close to our own position on abortion.
A pluralistic society must make room both for people who regard abortion as a profound moral wrong and for women who believe that government should not make deeply personal reproductive decisions for them.
Marshall favors substantially greater restrictions.
Hamilton is closer to the balance we seek.
A Temperament Kansas Could Use in Washington
Perhaps the strongest affirmative case for Hamilton is not any individual policy position.
It is temperament.
For more than three decades, Hamilton led an institution containing people who disagreed about politics, theology, abortion, sexuality and many other deeply divisive subjects. His approach was not to pretend those disagreements did not exist. It was to encourage people to continue talking despite them.
That experience does not guarantee success in the Senate.
But Washington could use considerably more of it.
The Centrist Independent Voter does not seek candidates who agree with us on every issue. We look for candidates who respect democratic institutions, think independently, accept evidence, recognize legitimate arguments on the other side and understand that political opponents remain fellow citizens.
Hamilton appears unusually well suited to that standard.
Religion and Public Office
Hamilton’s career as a clergyman also raises a question we think deserves to be asked.
Religious leaders are no less entitled to hold public office than anyone else. But senators govern citizens of every faith and of no faith. Religious office should confer neither a qualification for public office nor a special claim to political authority.
Hamilton has explicitly rejected Christian nationalism and the idea that the Constitution establishes the United States as a Christian nation. He has also said directly that he believes in the separation of church and state. (Adam Hamilton sermon)
That is reassuring.
Hamilton’s faith may inform his moral judgments, as any person’s background and convictions may. What matters to us is that religious doctrine not become governmental doctrine.
His position on abortion provides some evidence that he understands the distinction. Hamilton speaks openly about the moral value he places on unborn life while also arguing that legislators should not become women’s spiritual advisers or impose those judgments through government. (The Washington Post)
On the evidence we have seen, Hamilton appears to understand that a senator may bring his own values to public office without turning his church’s theology into the law of the land.
His church has also established explicit firewalls between Resurrection and the campaign: the church does not endorse candidates, campaign events are prohibited on church property, its database will not be shared, and church staff may not work on the campaign during church hours. (Church of the Resurrection)
Can He Win?
Kansas remains Republican territory, and Hamilton is an underdog.
But this is not a symbolic candidacy.
Hamilton raised approximately $3.6 million during his first two months in the race. (Kansas Reflector)
After his primary victory, the Cook Political Report moved Kansas from Solid Republican to Likely Republican. Inside Elections remains more skeptical and continues to rate the race Solid Republican. (Cook Political Report; Inside Elections)
A Democratic-sponsored Public Policy Polling survey conducted August 7–8 found Marshall ahead only 46 percent to 45 percent. Another Democratic campaign poll in July had Marshall ahead 47–43. These partisan polls should be treated cautiously.
Kansas has not elected a Democratic senator in nearly a century.
But it has repeatedly elected Democratic Governor Laura Kelly. Hamilton’s path is similar: unite Democrats, attract independents and persuade enough moderate Republicans that party loyalty need not dictate every vote.
It is a difficult path.
It is not an implausible one.
Our Endorsement
We have reservations about Adam Hamilton.
We want a clearer account of the role he believes the United States should play in the world, including his views on Ukraine and NATO. We want greater attention to deficits and entitlement solvency. We disagree with some of his proposed tax credits and portions of his health-care agenda.
But endorsements are comparative judgments.
Roger Marshall voted to reject legitimate electoral votes after the 2020 election. He has supported President Trump’s broad tariff policies, opposed congressional efforts to reassert war powers, supported a succession of highly controversial nominees even when other Republican senators broke ranks, opposed major assistance to Ukraine and too often treated loyalty to the president as a substitute for independent senatorial judgment.
Hamilton wants Congress to reclaim authority over tariffs and war. He combines border security with support for legal immigration. His position on abortion recognizes both individual liberty and legitimate moral concerns. He has explicitly rejected the use of Christianity as a claim to political privilege. And his long career has been built around bringing people with sharply different views into the same room rather than driving them farther apart.
We do not know how Adam Hamilton would vote on every issue.
We know enough to believe he would bring better judgment, greater independence and a more constructive temperament to the United States Senate.
The Centrist Independent Voter endorses Adam Hamilton for the United States Senate from Kansas.