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
- Editorial Roundup: Missouri - Kansas City Star
- ‘I didn’t do this’: Missouri man on death row despite ‘powerful’ DNA evidence speaks out - Kansas City Star
- Consumer watchdog agency's fate at Supreme Court could nix other ... - Kansas Public Radio
- Court reviews gun-carry restrictions under health order in New Mexico, as states explore options - Kansas City Star
- DeSantis said he would support a 15-week abortion ban, after avoiding a direct answer for months - Kansas City Star
- Hunter Biden returns to court in Delaware and is expected to plead not guilty to gun charges - Kansas City Star
- Fuller picture emerges of the 13 federal executions at the end of Trump’s presidency - Kansas City Star
- Judges should have to go to law school. That's not as obvious as it ... - Freedom of the Press Foundation
- Local law students will get to sit in on Kansas Supreme Court proceedings - KSNT News
- Here's the story of the portrait behind Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ... - Kansas Public Radio
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.