Author: Stephen Ware
State High Court & Judicial Nominating Commission | Composition & Terms of Judicial Nominating Commission | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|---|
Terms: 4 years (staggered) |
General
Interim Vacancies
|

Percentage of Lawyers on the Nominating Commission

Who Selects the Nominating Commissioners?
Latest News
- Decade since NC governor win, McCrory trounced in Senate bid - Kansas City Star
- Court declines to disturb Lake Michigan beach access ruling - Kansas City Star
- Editorial Roundup: South Carolina - Kansas City Star
- Justices to rule in gun case with US raw from mass shootings - Kansas City Star
- Singing about suffrage, and thinking about current struggles - Kansas City Star
- Senate panel approves Michelle Childs for DC appeals court - Kansas City Star
- With Roe doomed, the Kansas fight over abortion takes on a new urgency - KCUR
- Dispute over mosque becomes religious flashpoint in India - Kansas City Star
- What Johnson County voters need to know about redrawn Third Congressional District - Shawnee Mission Post
- Editorial Roundup: Florida - Kansas City Star
Scholarship & White Papers
Public Opinion Research
-
Declining to Follow Its Neighbor Missouri, the Kansas Supreme Court Holds Noneconomic Damages Cap in Medical Malpractice Cases Constitutional
The Kansas Supreme Court, in Miller v. Johnson,1 recently upheld Kansas’ statutory cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases, including medical malpractice cases, as constitutional. Specifically, the Kansas Supreme Court held the cap, set forth in K.S.A. 60-19a02, does not violate Sections 5 and 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights providing a right to a jury trial and a right to damages, respectively. This decision is in contrast to its neighboring state’s supreme court, which recently declared a statutory cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases unconstitutional for violation of the right to a jury trial.2
-
Tenth Circuit Rejects Challenge to the Judicial Merit Selection Process in Kansas
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has become the latest federal appellate court to weigh in on the constitutionality of the so-called “merit selection” method for selecting state court judges.1 Like the Eighth Circuit and Ninth Circuit courts before it, the Tenth Circuit upheld the key provision of the “merit selection” process against an Equal Protection Clause challenge.2 The Tenth Circuit’s decision was not unanimous, however. Further, the two judges in the majority disagreed on the appropriate analysis and application of relevant Supreme Court precedent. The divergent reasoning applied by the Tenth Circuit demonstrates the need for clarity from the Supreme Court. Only time will tell if such clarity will be provided.