20-2914. Same; vacancies in district magistrate judge positions; method of selection. (a) Whenever a vacancy shall occur in the office of district magistrate judge in any judicial district which has approved the proposition of nonpartisan selection of district court judges, or whenever a vacancy will occur in such office on a specified future date, the chief justice of the supreme court shall give notice of such vacancy to the chairperson of the district judicial nominating commission of such judicial district not later than 120 days following the date the vacancy occurs or will occur. The chairperson, in consultation with members of the commission, within five days after receipt of such notice, shall set a schedule for accepting nominations and conducting interviews for the purpose of selecting a person to fill such vacancy. Any person so selected shall have the qualifications prescribed by subsection (c) of K.S.A. 20-334, and amendments thereto, and in order to obtain the best qualified person as a district magistrate judge, the commission shall not limit its consideration of potential appointees to those persons whose names have been submitted to the commission or who have expressed a willingness to serve. The commission may authorize one or more members of the commission to tender an appointment to any qualified person in order to ascertain such person's willingness to serve if appointed. Any such tender of appointment shall be subject to final action of the commission under the conditions prescribed by subsection (b) of K.S.A. 20-2907, and amendments thereto.
(b) Any appointment made pursuant to subsection (a) shall be contingent upon the acceptance of such appointment by the person so appointed and, if such person is not regularly admitted to practice law in Kansas, the appointment shall be made on a temporary basis until such person has been certified by the supreme court as qualified to hold such office, in the manner provided by K.S.A. 20-337, and amendments thereto.
History: L. 1976, ch. 146, § 20; L. 2003, ch. 99, § 15; L. 2014, ch. 82, § 21; July 1.
L. 2014, ch. 82, was held to be an invalid enactment, see Solomon v. State, 303 K. 512, 364 P.3d 536 (2015).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.