Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Kansas Supreme Court elections, 2016
 |
Presidential • U.S. Senate • U.S. House • State Senate • State House • State judges • Local judges • State ballot measures • Recalls • Candidate ballot access |
 |
| 2016 State Judicial Elections |
|---|
 |
| Part 1: Overview |
| Part 2: Supreme Courts |
| Part 3: Partisanship |
| Part 4: Changes in 2016 |
Five seats on the Kansas Supreme Court were up for retention elections on November 8, 2016. Chief Justice Lawton Nuss and Justices Marla Luckert, Carol Beier, Daniel Biles, and Caleb Stegall faced retention elections.[1] If retained, a supreme court justice serves for six years prior to the next retention election.
The justices who faced retention were the focal point of both a statewide school funding battle and dissatisfaction with the court's decisions in several recent death penalty cases. The state court's decisions in these cases were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Several groups coordinated campaigns, some for and some against the retention of the justices.
This election was one of Ballotpedia's top 10 state-level races in 2016.
Click here to read the full list.
Justices who faced retention
|
Chief Justice Lawton Nuss (Retained) | |
| Most recent position: Chief Justice, Kansas Supreme Court, 2002-2017 Past experience: Attorney, Clark Mize & Linville | ||
| Chief Justice Lawton Nuss said he favored continuing the current system of judicial appointment and retention in Kansas. Under this system, supreme court justices are appointed by the governor from a list prepared by a judicial nominating commission and are later retained or not retained by voters for further terms. "Every six years, the voters of Kansas get an opportunity to go into the voting booth and say: Do they want to keep Lawton Nuss as a justice, or do they not?" Nuss said during his 2016 State of the Judiciary address.[2] "And they have that same right on all of my colleagues and they've had that right for many years. I don’t know how much more democratic you can get than a process that puts my future in the hands of the voter directly in the ballot box or the voting booth." | |
|
Justice Marla Luckert (Retained) | |
| Most recent position: Justice, Kansas Supreme Court, 2003-2017 Past experience: Judge, Kansas Third Judicial District | ||
| Justice Marla Luckert said that Kansans for Life's opposition to her retention and that of her fellow justices was based on disagreement with a small number of the court's decisions, among thousands of other decisions. "This group is focusing on about six to 10 decisions with which they disagree, or even, apparently, with some decisions that they do see as being on the horizon," Luckert said.[3] "Now, I am not saying there should not be disagreement or discourse about the decisions. I'm not saying everyone should agree with the decisions I make or that my court makes. There is room for disagreement; we have dissent. We don't even agree ourselves sometimes. But we all need, I believe, to step back and not be swept [by] the rhetoric, and instead think about what is the role of the courts in our democracy." | |
|
Justice Carol Beier (Retained) | |
| Most recent position: Justice, Kansas Supreme Court, 2003-2017 Past experience: Judge, Kansas Court of Appeals | ||
| Justice Carol Beier recused herself from the school funding case due to friendship with one of the attorneys on the case.[4] In a Fourth of July speech at Grace Cathedral, Topeka, Beier decried the lack of good faith in public discourse and called upon American citizens to exhibit good faith as a civic virtue. "It is the mutual respect and civility and trust we owe each other as fellow citizens and the mutual respect and civility and trust we must demand of those who seek to lead our nation and our state. Without this type of good faith, I do not exaggerate when I say that our founders’ grand, inspired, and inspiring design, enlightened self-government, is imperiled."[5] | |
|
Justice Daniel Biles (Retained) | |
| Most recent position: Justice, Kansas Supreme Court, 2009-2017 Past experience: Attorney in private practice | ||
| Justice Dan Biles said that the existing Kansas system of judicial appointment and retention had "proven itself to be blind to the more partisan manipulation."[6] He also talked about the court's obligation to restrain itself from public comment on cases and from public political discourse in general. "I think we have an obligation to stay above the fray," he said. "We can't always defend ourselves, and that's OK."[6] | |
|
Justice Caleb Stegall (Retained) | |
| Most recent position: Justice, Kansas Supreme Court, 2014-2017 Past experience: Judge, Kansas Court of Appeals | ||
| Justice Caleb Stegall said of the Kansas Supreme Court, "It can be a fairly intense exchange of ideas," also describing the court's workings as "a free-flowing exchange of perspectives."[7] He said that most of the time, the judges reach a unanimous vote on a case. "The public should be comforted by this unanimity," he said.[7] Stegall has declined to compare various methods of judicial selection, referring to the issue as one of public policy. But he spotlighted the independence of the judiciary as critical.[7][6] | |
Election results
November 8 general election
Lawton Nuss was retained in the Kansas Supreme Court, Nuss' Seat election with 55.32% of the vote.
| Kansas Supreme Court, Nuss' Seat, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Yes votes | |
 Lawton Nuss | 55.32% | |
| Source: Kansas Secretary of State Official Results | ||
Marla Luckert was retained in the Kansas Supreme Court election with 56% of the vote.
| Kansas Supreme Court, Luckert's Seat, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Yes votes | |
| Marla Luckert | 56.0% | |
| Source: Kansas Secretary of State Official Results | ||
Carol Beier was retained in the Kansas Supreme Court, Beier's Seat election with 56.24% of the vote.
| Kansas Supreme Court, Beier's Seat, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Yes votes | |
| Carol Beier | 56.24% | |
| Source: Kansas Secretary of State Official Results | ||
Daniel Biles was retained in the Kansas Supreme Court election with 55.5% of the vote.
| Kansas Supreme Court, Biles' Seat, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Yes votes | |
| Daniel Biles | 55.59% | |
| Source: Kansas Secretary of State Official Results | ||
Caleb Stegall was retained in the Kansas Supreme Court, Stegall's Seat election with 70.82% of the vote.
| Kansas Supreme Court, Stegall's Seat, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Yes votes | |
| Caleb Stegall | 70.82% | |
| Source: Kansas Secretary of State Official Results | ||
Context of 2016 retention elections
Retention elections of state supreme court justices are usually among the least noticed elections on the ballot. Each sitting justice is typically retained for another term with little fanfare.
In 2016, rival groups sought to influence the retention of four Kansas state supreme court justices. The group Kansans for Justice, consisting of friends and relatives of the victims of convicted criminals the Carr brothers, campaigned for the removal of four out of five sitting supreme court justices standing for retention in 2016: Marla Luckert, Lawton Nuss, Carol Beier, and Daniel Biles. The group Kansans for Fair Courts campaigned instead for the retention of all five justices.
Going into the election, history was on the side of the judges seeking retention; no supreme court justice or court of appeals judge in Kansas had ever failed to be retained.[8][9] In the event that one or more of the judges did not win retention, Republican Governor Sam Brownback would have appointed justices to succeed them.
Against retention: Kansans for Justice and Kansans for Life
Kansans for Justice based its campaign for the removal of the justices on the supreme court's handling of the Carr brothers' criminal case.[10] The Carr brothers killed five people, among many other crimes, in 2000.[9][11] They were sentenced to death.[9] In 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned their death sentences because it ruled unconstitutional the lack of a jury instruction about mitigating factors.[9][12]
Kansans for Justice campaigned in 2014 against retention of the two justices up for retention that year who joined in overturning the death sentences: Justices Eric Rosen and Lee Johnson.[8][13] Both were ultimately retained. The group announced in August 2016 that it would campaign for the removal of Justices Luckert, Nuss, Beir, and Biles in 2016 as well.[9] The fifth justice up for retention in 2016, Caleb Stegall, was not a member of the court at the time of the 2014 ruling in the Carr case.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Kansas Supreme Court decision vacating the Carrs' death penalties in January 2016.[9][12] The Supreme Court reversed decisions in the last six cases it heard from the Kansas Supreme Court; five of these six were death penalty cases in which the Kansas court had overturned the death sentences.[14]
Three of these five reversed death penalty cases were the cases of the two Carr brothers and the case of Kansas v. Gleason, which presented the same question at issue in the Carr case. In an 8-1 decision in January 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not require juries to be instructed that mitigating factors need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[15] The three cases were remanded to the Kansas Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling removes the defendants' primary argument against their death sentences.
The remaining two reversed death penalty cases were Kansas v. Cheever and Kansas v. Marsh.[14] In Kansas v. Cheever, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the defendant's use of a mental-state defense had opened the way for the prosecution to rebut evidence of his mental state.[16] The decision was 9-0. Upon remand to the Kansas Supreme Court, that court upheld Cheever's death sentence in 2016.[17]
Kansas v. Marsh centered on the Kansas death penalty statute that requires the imposition of the death sentence if mitigating factors are not found to outweigh aggravating factors, even if the jury finds that those factors are equally balanced. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in 2006 that this statute is not unconstitutional.[18] Marsh was scheduled for a retrial. Before that trial commenced, Marsh reached a plea agreement that sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences.[19]
The group Kansans for Life also campaigned to remove Justices Nuss, Luckert, Beier, and Biles based on court decisions about abortion, among other issues.[20] Kansans for Life also campaigned against the retention of Kansas Court of Appeals Judges Steve Leben, Joseph Pierron, G. Gordon Atcheson, and Karen Arnold-Burger.[21]
The Kansas Republican Party was also against retention for the four justices, though it said it would not spend resources campaigning against them.[22]
The Kansas House Republican caucus sent out an email that stated the justices have a "shameful disregard for the law and that they’ve been scolded on numerous occasions by the U.S. Supreme Court."[23]
For retention: Kansans for Fair Courts
Kansans for Fair Courts based its campaign on responding to calls for removal of the justices.[24] The group's introductory statement reads in part:[24]
| “ | A recent poll by Fort Hays State University showed that Kansans have more trust and support for the court system than any other branch of government. And, yet, politicians in Topeka continue to attack our courts at an alarming rate. It’s time to stop these politicians.[25] |
” |
The board of directors of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce endorsed the group's efforts in a statement.[26]
Four former governors of Kansas campaigned with Kansans for Fair Courts for retention of the justices. Democrats Kathleen Sebelius and John Carlin and Republicans Mike Hayden and Bill Graves made a series of appearances in September, coordinated by Kansans for Fair Courts, to urge voters to retain the justices.[23] Three out of the four governors agreed with the statement that the Carr brothers case was being used in an attempt to "restack" the court.[27] Gov. Hayden said, "Whether it's a criminal case like the Carr case or whether it's any other controversial issue that [the court] may have had some involvement in deciding...I think there's a sentiment of, 'Well, let's just try to throw this group out and we'll take our chances with a whole entirely new class of judges...and hope that they will view and interpret public policy in a way more suited to our way of thinking.'"[27]
School funding
In 2016, the Kansas Supreme Court became a focal point of a statewide battle over school funding. In March 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state's education funding plan was unconstitutional due to the funding shortfalls and inequalities it created. The court ordered the legislature to revise the funding program.[28]
In March 2016, the Kansas State Senate narrowly passed a bill to expand and define impeachable offenses for supreme court justices. Specifically, the bill defines the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is cited as cause for impeachment of justices in the Kansas State Constitution. If the bill passes, high crimes and misdemeanors for supreme court justices would include, among other offenses, “commission of a breach of judicial ethics," “attempting to subvert fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power," and “attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government.” The bill, SB 439, moved to the Kansas House of Representatives Committee on Judiciary for review.[29]
In May 2016, the state supreme court again rejected a legislative plan for school funding and warned that if the problems weren't solved by June 30, a court order would prevent schools from reopening in the fall.[30]
The legislature began a two-day special session on June 23, 2016, to pass a new bill for school funding. In addition, two bills were immediately introduced by the House Judiciary Committee: a constitutional amendment that would cap school funding at 45 percent of the state budget and a bill to create an entirely new "superior court" that would have authority over the existing state supreme court.[31] Click here to read the text of the bill. It prescribed that the superior court would have appellate jurisdiction over decisions of administrative bodies and officers of the state and appellate jurisdiction over all matters for which the state supreme court has original jurisdiction—and that the superior court would be the court of last resort for all matters over which it has jurisdiction, meaning that the supreme court would have no authority to hear rulings of the superior court. The bill provided a timeline for appointing judges and setting up the court by the summer of 2017.
The legislature passed the new funding bill during the special session, Gov. Sam Brownback signed it, and the high court quickly issued a ruling in advance of the June 30 deadline accepting the new funding plans and avoiding school shutdown.[32] However, the court case over school funding continues. The state supreme court heard oral argument from the state and from school districts on September 21.[33]
Campaign finance
Outside groups
Under election finance laws in Kansas, neither Kansans for Justice nor Kansans for Fair Courts were required to disclose their donors.[34] Thus, it was not clear which group raised more money or where the money came from.
Justices' campaigns
Supreme court justices and appeals court judges standing for retention do not fall under the state campaign finance laws that apply to elected offices. Judges do not have to create conventional campaign committees. Instead, each judge standing for retention in 2016 had a corporation associated with him or her that is supporting the judge's retention. Beier and Stegall were listed as incorporators of the groups associated with them; corporations supporting Luckert, Nuss, and Biles were not incorporated by the justices themselves.[8][34]
These corporations, like the outside groups, were not required to disclose donors.[8][34]
Endorsements
Kansas Judicial Evaluation Committee
A group called the Kansas Judicial Evaluation Committee, composed of state attorneys, law school professors, and members of civic and voters' groups, used survey questions about each supreme court justice and each court of appeals judge up for retention in 2016 to compile a body of recommendations about each judge's retention.[35] Attorneys and judges who had direct knowledge of the judges from past experience were invited to participate.[36] The number of responses was 1,264. The responses were divided between responses from attorneys and responses from judges.[37]
Lawyer responses: Here are the judges' ratings from the lawyers who participated in the survey.
| Judges' Survey Ratings from Participating Lawyers | |||||
| Judge | Strongly Recommend | Somewhat Recommend | Somewhat Do Not Recommend | Strongly Do Not Recommend | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lawton Nuss | 78% | 7% | 3% | 11% | 1% |
| Marla Luckert | 81% | 6% | 2% | 10% | 0% |
| Carol Beier | 74% | 7% | 3% | 15% | 0% |
| Daniel Biles | 77% | 6% | 4% | 12% | 1% |
| Caleb Stegall | 39% | 16% | 12% | 31% | 2% |
| Source: 2016 Judicial Review Survey | |||||
Judge responses: Here are the judges' ratings from the judges who participated in the survey.
| Judges' Survey Ratings from Participating Judges | |||||
| Judge | Strongly Recommend | Somewhat Recommend | Somewhat Do Not Recommend | Strongly Do Not Recommend | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lawton Nuss | 81% | 8% | 3% | 9% | 0% |
| Marla Luckert | 88% | 7% | 1% | 4% | 0% |
| Carol Beier | 77% | 10% | 3% | 10% | 0% |
| Daniel Biles | 75% | 11% | 5% | 10% | 0% |
| Caleb Stegall | 54% | 22% | 15% | 7% | 2% |
| Source: 2016 Judicial Review Survey | |||||
Other endorsements
- The Kansas City Star endorsed the retention of the four justices targeted by Kansas for Justice.
- The Topeka Capital-Journal endorsed retention of the justices.
Political composition
Justices on the Kansas Supreme Court are nonpartisan and appointed to their seats. Justices Lee Johnson, Carol Beier, Eric Rosen, and Daniel Biles were appointed by Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. The remaining three justices were selected by Republican Govs. Bill Graves and Sam Brownback.
| ■ Justice Lee Johnson | Appointed by Kathleen Sebelius (D) in 2007 | |
| ■ Justice Carol Beier | Appointed by Kathleen Sebelius (D) in 2003 | |
| ■ Justice Eric Rosen | Appointed by Kathleen Sebelius (D) in 2005 | |
| ■ Justice Daniel Biles | Appointed by Kathleen Sebelius (D) in 2009 | |
| ■ Justice Caleb Stegall | Appointed by Sam Brownback (R) in 2014 | |
| ■ Chief Justice Lawton Nuss | Appointed by Bill Graves (R) in 2002 | |
| ■ Justice Marla Luckert | Appointed by Bill Graves (R) in 2002 |
Selection
- See also: Judicial selection in Kansas
Kansas chooses its justices using a selection commission. The Supreme Court Nominating Commission selects three potential candidates for placement as a supreme court justice and presents its recommendations to the governor. The governor must then appoint one justice from the list. If a justice is appointed, he must stand for a retention vote after one year. Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court are elected for terms of six years.[38]
Political outlook
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns." A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of Kansas was given a campaign finance score (CFscore), which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, Kansas received a score of 0.12. Based on the justices selected, Kansas was the 17th most conservative court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, or—in the absence of elections—the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.[39]
Nominating commission
The Supreme Court Nominating Commission is composed of representatives from each congressional district and, during times of judicial vacancy, is in charge of compiling a list of potential supreme court justices to present to the governor.
Qualifications
To serve on this court, a judge must:
- have at least 10 years of active and continuous law practice in the state;
- be at least 30 years old; and
- be no older than 70. If a sitting judge turns 70 while on the bench, he or she may serve out the term.[40]
Removal of justices
Kansas judges, according to Article 2 of the Kansas Constitution, may be removed by impeachment and conviction, by the supreme court on recommendation of the commission on judicial qualifications, or by the governor due to incapacitation.[41][42]
Judges are also removed by a majority of votes against their retention.
State profile
| Demographic data for Kansas | ||
|---|---|---|
| Kansas | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 2,906,721 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 81,759 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 85.2% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.8% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 2.6% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.8% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 3.3% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 11.2% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 90.2% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 31% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $52,205 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 15% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Kansas. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Kansas
Kansas voted Republican in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
More Kansas coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Kansas
- United States congressional delegations from Kansas
- Public policy in Kansas
- Endorsers in Kansas
- Kansas fact checks
- More...
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Kansas Supreme Court Retention 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Kansas Secretary of State, "Candidate Lists," accessed August 5, 2016
- ↑ The Topeka Capital-Journal, "Lawton Nuss, Kansas chief justice, defends current method of picking state Supreme Court justices," February 3, 2016
- ↑ The Topeka Capital-Journal, "Facing retention election, Kansas justice warns against being 'swept' by rhetoric about the courts," May 11, 2016
- ↑ The Topkea Capital-Journal, "Kansas Supreme Court justice's fundraising arm decries 'politicized effort' to oust members over school finance," April 14, 2016
- ↑ Justice Carol Beier, Kansas Supreme Court, "Good Faith," accessed August 30, 2016
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 The Cowley Courier Traveler, "Adhering to ‘rules’ key, justices say," August 5, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 The Cowley Courier Traveler, "High court justices meet with public," August 4, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Salina Journal, "Justices under attack for rulings," April 14, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 The Topeka Capital-Journal, "Group linked to Carr brothers' victims pushes to oust Kansas Supreme Court justices," August 10, 2016
- ↑ Kansans for Justice, "Injustice from Our Justices," accessed August 25, 2016
- ↑ The Topeka Capital-Journal, "Carr brothers found guilty," November 5, 2002
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 SCOTUSblog, "Opinion analysis: Few sparks, eight votes for the state in Kansas capital cases," January 20, 2016
- ↑ ProPublica, "A Kansas Group’s Push to Oust Judges Reveals a Gap in Campaign Finance Rules," October 27, 2014
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Kansans for Justice, "Other Cases," accessed August 25, 2016
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Kansas v. Gleason," accessed August 29, 2016
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Kansas v. Cheever," accessed August 29, 2016
- ↑ KSNT, "Kansas court upholds death sentence for sheriff’s killing," July 22, 2016
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "More on Today’s Opinion in Kansas v. Marsh," June 26, 2006
- ↑ The Wichita Eagle, "Death penalty: 'This is how it's supposed to work,'" October 3, 2015
- ↑ Better Judges for Kansas, accessed August 30, 2016
- ↑ Better Judges for Kansas, "Voter Guide," accessed August 30, 2016
- ↑ The Wichita Eagle, "High stakes in Kansas Supreme Court retention vote," September 5, 2016
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 Wyandotte Daily Online, "Four former governors hit the road to support Kansas Supreme Court," September 7, 2016
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 Kansans for Fair Courts, accessed August 25, 2016
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, "KC Chamber Board Says Keep Kansas Courts Nonpolitical and Nonpartisan," accessed August 29, 2016
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 KMUW Wichita, "Former KS Govs: Carr Brothers Case Being Used To 'Restack' Supreme Court Over School Funding," September 7, 2016
- ↑ New York Times, "Court Orders Kansas Legislature to Spend More on Schools," March 7, 2014
- ↑ Wichita Eagle, "Kansas Senate passes judicial-impeachment bill," March 22, 2016
- ↑ St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Court ruling raises possibility Kansas City schools can't open," May 28, 2016
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Constitutional amendment, bill to create Kansas ‘superior court’ introduced," June 23, 2016
- ↑ Reuters, "Kansas court says funding plan averts need to close public schools," June 28, 2016
- ↑ KSNT.com, "Kansas school funding court case continues," August 16, 2016
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 The Topeka Capital-Journal, "Judicial retention campaigns heat up; little disclosure of donors and spending," August 13, 2016
- ↑ 2016 Judicial Review Survey, "About the Survey Committee," accessed August 25, 2016
- ↑ 2016 Judicial Review Survey, "Survey Methodology," accessed August 25, 2016
- ↑ 2016 Judicial Review Survey, "Retention Opinion Summaries for All Justices and Judges," accessed August 25, 2016
- ↑ Kansas Judicial Branch, "Supreme Court," accessed August 24, 2015
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
- ↑ American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Kansas," archived October 2, 2014
- ↑ Kansas Judicial Branch, "Commission on Judicial Qualifications," accessed March 26, 2015
- ↑ American Judicature Society, "Methods of Selection: Removal of Judges," archived October 2, 2014
| ||||||||||
Federal courts:
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Kansas • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Kansas
State courts:
Kansas Supreme Court • Kansas Court of Appeals • Kansas District Courts • Kansas Municipal Courts
State resources:
Courts in Kansas • Kansas judicial elections • Judicial selection in Kansas
