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
- Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to Kansas congressional map - The Hill
- Supreme Court to hear lawsuit involving disability activist - Kansas City Star
- Supreme Court declines to hear Kansas racial gerrymandering case, leaves congressional map in force - CNN
- Kansas Supreme Court soliciting public comment on policy for broadcasting or recording court proceedings - KVOE
- Kansas court to review pair of unenforced abortion laws - WFMJ
- Kansas court to review pair of unenforced abortion laws - Raleigh News & Observer
- Kansas court to review pair of unenforced abortion laws - The Seattle Times
- Kansas court to review pair of unenforced abortion laws - Bozeman Daily Chronicle
- Kansas court to review pair of unenforced abortion laws - WBOC TV 16
- Kansas Supreme Court will weigh abortion rights for first time since overturn of Roe - 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.