2026 Judicial Evaluation Results | Johnson County Bar Association

Johnson County Bar Association

2026 Judicial Evaluation Results

Tenth Judicial District • Johnson County District Court

The Johnson County Bar Association conducts a Judicial Evaluation Survey every even-numbered year in accordance with its bylaws. The survey coincides with the judicial retention elections for judges of the Tenth Judicial District whose terms expire that year.

The purpose of the survey is to provide attorneys with an opportunity to evaluate judges based on their professional experience appearing before them and to provide the public with information about judges appearing on the November retention ballot.

A total of 5,496 survey invitations were distributed, with 387 attorneys participating. Because there is no available method to identify attorneys who regularly appear before Tenth Judicial District judges, invitations were distributed to a broader attorney pool. Attorneys evaluated only those judges with whom they had sufficient professional experience to provide an informed assessment.

Retention Recommendation Results

The table below summarizes the retention recommendations for judges appearing on the November 2026 retention ballot. The number of evaluations varies by judge because attorneys evaluated only those judges with whom they had sufficient professional experience.

Judge	Number of Evaluations	Yes – Should Be Retained	No – Should Not Be Retained
Hon. Jenifer J. Ashford	43	81%	19%
Hon. Christina Dunn Gyllenborg	79	99%	1%
Hon. Neil B. Foth	69	91%	9%
Hon. Michael P. Joyce	76	71%	29%
Hon. Rhonda K. Mason	92	86%	14%
Hon. Timothy P. McCarthy	63	89%	11%
Hon. Keven M. P. O'Grady	78	87%	13%
Hon. Jacquelyn E. Rokusek	80	91%	9%
Hon. Thomas Kelly Ryan	96	96%	4%
Hon. Erica K. Schoenig	67	96%	4%
Hon. Kathleen L. Sloan	29	83%	17%

Full 2026 Judicial Evaluation Results

The results below include all judges evaluated as part of the 2026 Judicial Evaluation Survey. Attorneys rated judges in eight areas based on their professional experience. The number of evaluations varies by judge because attorneys evaluated only those judges with whom they had sufficient professional experience. Individual responses were submitted anonymously and are presented only in aggregate. No individual attorney or response can be identified from the information contained in these results.

2026 Judicial Evaluation Results

Hon. Jenifer J. Ashford

Retention: Yes 81% | No 19%

Evaluations: 43

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	58%	23%	7%	7%	5%
Communication	55%	23%	12%	5%	5%
Judicial Temperament	56%	19%	16%	0%	9%
Fairness & Impartiality	53%	21%	14%	7%	5%
Punctuality	65%	21%	12%	0%	2%
Professionalism & Administration	67%	19%	7%	2%	5%
Administrative Assistant	77%	14%	7%	0%	2%
Overall Performance	56%	21%	9%	9%	5%

Hon. Jason B. Billam

Retention: Yes 90% | No 10%

Evaluations: 91

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	69%	24%	3%	4%	0%
Communication	68%	26%	3%	2%	1%
Judicial Temperament	73%	21%	5%	0%	1%
Fairness & Impartiality	70%	19%	7%	4%	0%
Punctuality	74%	20%	4%	1%	1%
Professionalism & Administration	74%	23%	2%	1%	0%
Administrative Assistant	75%	22%	2%	1%	0%
Overall Performance	65%	29%	3%	2%	1%

Hon. Paul Burmaster

Retention: Yes 89% | No 11%

Evaluations: 93

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	62%	24%	7%	6%	1%
Communication	59%	26%	5%	10%	0%
Judicial Temperament	66%	25%	6%	2%	1%
Fairness & Impartiality	65%	26%	9%	0%	0%
Punctuality	68%	23%	6%	2%	1%
Professionalism & Administration	68%	24%	5%	1%	2%
Administrative Assistant	74%	25%	1%	0%	0%
Overall Performance	66%	24%	5%	3%	2%

Hon. Brenda Cameron

Retention: Yes 86% | No 14%

Evaluations: 37

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	68%	22%	5%	0%	5%
Communication	71%	14%	5%	5%	5%
Judicial Temperament	62%	14%	8%	8%	8%
Fairness & Impartiality	62%	14%	11%	10%	3%
Punctuality	73%	14%	5%	0%	8%
Professionalism & Administration	75%	14%	5%	3%	3%
Administrative Assistant	78%	19%	3%	0%	0%
Overall Performance	65%	19%	5%	3%	8%

Hon. Catherine Decena Triplett

Retention: Yes 94% | No 6%

Evaluations: 125

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	68%	27%	2%	2%	1%
Communication	66%	25%	7%	1%	1%
Judicial Temperament	76%	21%	2%	1%	0%
Fairness & Impartiality	70%	24%	4%	1%	1%
Punctuality	60%	23%	8%	4%	5%
Professionalism & Administration	73%	23%	2%	2%	0%
Administrative Assistant	74%	17%	7%	2%	0%
Overall Performance	65%	27%	4%	2%	2%

Hon. James Charles Droege

Retention: Yes 97% | No 3%

Evaluations: 90

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	74%	20%	6%	0%	0%
Communication	74%	19%	6%	1%	0%
Judicial Temperament	78%	19%	3%	0%	0%
Fairness & Impartiality	74%	14%	9%	3%	0%
Punctuality	73%	22%	4%	1%	0%
Professionalism & Administration	78%	19%	3%	0%	0%
Administrative Assistant	77%	18%	4%	1%	0%
Overall Performance	76%	18%	4%	2%	0%

Hon. Christina Dunn Gyllenborg

Retention: Yes 99% | No 1%

Evaluations: 79

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	76%	15%	3%	6%	0%
Communication	75%	20%	3%	1%	1%
Judicial Temperament	75%	15%	3%	3%	4%
Fairness & Impartiality	76%	13%	6%	3%	2%
Punctuality	78%	18%	3%	1%	0%
Professionalism & Administration	80%	17%	0%	0%	3%
Administrative Assistant	82%	14%	4%	0%	0%
Overall Performance	76%	16%	3%	3%	2%

Hon. Neil B. Foth

Retention: Yes 91% | No 9%

Evaluations: 69

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	69%	17%	7%	5%	2%
Communication	65%	18%	8%	4%	5%
Judicial Temperament	59%	21%	8%	7%	5%
Fairness & Impartiality	63%	20%	6%	7%	4%
Punctuality	73%	22%	4%	1%	0%
Professionalism & Administration	73%	15%	6%	4%	2%
Administrative Assistant	69%	22%	7%	1%	1%
Overall Performance	64%	20%	7%	5%	4%

Hon. Stephanie Goodenow

Retention: Yes 84% | No 16%

Evaluations: 70

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	54%	25%	9%	5%	7%
Communication	57%	21%	13%	4%	5%
Judicial Temperament	69%	23%	2%	2%	4%
Fairness & Impartiality	65%	21%	7%	2%	5%
Punctuality	70%	23%	5%	0%	2%
Professionalism & Administration	70%	20%	2%	4%	4%
Administrative Assistant	66%	21%	9%	2%	2%
Overall Performance	59%	24%	7%	5%	5%

Hon. K. Christopher Jayaram

Retention: Yes 86% | No 14%

Evaluations: 119

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	79%	13%	6%	2%	0%
Communication	79%	13%	6%	2%	0%
Judicial Temperament	79%	13%	8%	0%	0%
Fairness & Impartiality	77%	13%	10%	0%	0%
Punctuality	77%	19%	2%	2%	0%
Professionalism & Administration	81%	15%	2%	2%	0%
Administrative Assistant	84%	12%	2%	2%	0%
Overall Performance	78%	14%	5%	2%	1%

Hon. Michael P. Joyce

Retention: Yes 71% | No 29%

Evaluations: 76

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	47%	25%	9%	10%	9%
Communication	47%	25%	9%	9%	10%
Judicial Temperament	45%	24%	9%	9%	13%
Fairness & Impartiality	45%	24%	9%	9%	13%
Punctuality	59%	25%	9%	4%	3%
Professionalism & Administration	51%	24%	7%	7%	11%
Administrative Assistant	65%	22%	7%	3%	3%
Overall Performance	47%	23%	8%	9%	13%

Hon. Rhonda K. Mason

Retention: Yes 86% | No 14%

Evaluations: 92

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	61%	25%	8%	4%	2%
Communication	61%	25%	8%	4%	2%
Judicial Temperament	63%	24%	7%	4%	2%
Fairness & Impartiality	61%	24%	9%	4%	2%
Punctuality	67%	25%	5%	2%	1%
Professionalism & Administration	65%	25%	6%	2%	2%
Administrative Assistant	70%	22%	6%	1%	1%
Overall Performance	62%	25%	7%	4%	2%

Hon. Timothy P. McCarthy

Retention: Yes 89% | No 11%

Evaluations: 63

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	53%	27%	5%	10%	5%
Communication	60%	21%	10%	9%	0%
Judicial Temperament	81%	17%	0%	2%	0%
Fairness & Impartiality	62%	24%	6%	8%	0%
Punctuality	65%	32%	3%	0%	0%
Professionalism & Administration	67%	29%	2%	2%	0%
Administrative Assistant	74%	19%	5%	2%	0%
Overall Performance	59%	25%	6%	10%	0%

Hon. John McEntee

Retention: Yes 93% | No 7%

Evaluations: 109

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	76%	15%	3%	6%	0%
Communication	75%	20%	3%	1%	1%
Judicial Temperament	75%	15%	3%	3%	4%
Fairness & Impartiality	76%	13%	6%	3%	2%
Punctuality	78%	18%	3%	1%	0%
Professionalism & Administration	80%	17%	0%	0%	3%
Administrative Assistant	82%	14%	4%	0%	0%
Overall Performance	76%	15%	2%	6%	1%

Hon. Keven M. P. O'Grady

Retention: Yes 87% | No 13%

Evaluations: 78

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	71%	21%	4%	1%	3%
Communication	57%	29%	5%	4%	5%
Judicial Temperament	51%	26%	9%	6%	8%
Fairness & Impartiality	56%	21%	10%	5%	8%
Punctuality	68%	26%	3%	0%	3%
Professionalism & Administration	67%	24%	4%	1%	4%
Administrative Assistant	68%	22%	3%	4%	3%
Overall Performance	53%	29%	5%	8%	5%

Hon. Jacquelyn E. Rokusek

Retention: Yes 91% | No 9%

Evaluations: 80

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	67%	21%	5%	6%	1%
Communication	69%	15%	9%	6%	1%
Judicial Temperament	69%	21%	1%	6%	3%
Fairness & Impartiality	63%	23%	6%	5%	3%
Punctuality	72%	23%	3%	1%	1%
Professionalism & Administration	74%	16%	6%	4%	0%
Administrative Assistant	70%	23%	6%	0%	1%
Overall Performance	68%	18%	5%	8%	1%

Hon. Thomas Kelly Ryan

Retention: Yes 96% | No 4%

Evaluations: 96

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	68%	27%	2%	2%	1%
Communication	66%	25%	7%	1%	1%
Judicial Temperament	76%	21%	2%	1%	0%
Fairness & Impartiality	70%	24%	4%	1%	1%
Punctuality	60%	23%	8%	4%	5%
Professionalism & Administration	73%	23%	2%	2%	0%
Administrative Assistant	74%	17%	7%	2%	0%
Overall Performance	65%	28%	4%	3%	0%

Hon. Curtis Sample

Retention: Yes 98% | No 2%

Evaluations: 52

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	79%	13%	6%	2%	0%
Communication	79%	13%	6%	2%	0%
Judicial Temperament	79%	13%	8%	0%	0%
Fairness & Impartiality	77%	13%	10%	0%	0%
Punctuality	77%	19%	2%	2%	0%
Professionalism & Administration	81%	15%	2%	2%	0%
Administrative Assistant	84%	12%	4%	0%	0%
Overall Performance	80%	12%	6%	2%	0%

Hon. Erica K. Schoenig

Retention: Yes 96% | No 4%

Evaluations: 67

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	77%	21%	1%	0%	1%
Communication	72%	24%	3%	0%	1%
Judicial Temperament	72%	24%	3%	0%	1%
Fairness & Impartiality	70%	25%	1%	3%	1%
Punctuality	60%	18%	7%	6%	9%
Professionalism & Administration	74%	24%	1%	0%	1%
Administrative Assistant	70%	21%	6%	0%	3%
Overall Performance	70%	27%	1%	1%	1%

Hon. Kathleen L. Sloan

Retention: Yes 83% | No 17%

Evaluations: 29

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	59%	28%	10%	3%	0%
Communication	59%	28%	3%	0%	10%
Judicial Temperament	42%	24%	17%	10%	7%
Fairness & Impartiality	52%	24%	10%	7%	7%
Punctuality	45%	14%	24%	14%	3%
Professionalism & Administration	48%	24%	21%	7%	0%
Administrative Assistant	83%	7%	10%	0%	0%
Overall Performance	49%	31%	7%	10%	3%

Hon. Wayne Smith

Retention: Yes 89% | No 11%

Evaluations: 56

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	54%	25%	9%	5%	7%
Communication	57%	21%	13%	4%	5%
Judicial Temperament	69%	23%	2%	2%	4%
Fairness & Impartiality	65%	21%	7%	2%	5%
Punctuality	70%	23%	5%	0%	2%
Professionalism & Administration	70%	20%	2%	4%	4%
Administrative Assistant	66%	21%	9%	2%	2%
Overall Performance	62%	20%	9%	2%	7%

Hon. Thomas M. Sutherland

Retention: Yes 87% | No 13%

Evaluations: 79

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	66%	19%	5%	9%	1%
Communication	67%	15%	14%	4%	0%
Judicial Temperament	67%	18%	1%	9%	5%
Fairness & Impartiality	64%	19%	8%	8%	1%
Punctuality	65%	28%	3%	4%	0%
Professionalism & Administration	71%	19%	3%	6%	1%
Administrative Assistant	75%	20%	5%	0%	0%
Overall Performance	66%	19%	4%	10%	1%

Hon. JoAnn Woltman

Retention: Yes 89% | No 11%

Evaluations: 66

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	66%	14%	12%	5%	3%
Communication	66%	14%	11%	6%	3%
Judicial Temperament	61%	24%	5%	5%	5%
Fairness & Impartiality	63%	27%	5%	3%	2%
Punctuality	70%	26%	2%	2%	0%
Professionalism & Administration	67%	26%	5%	0%	2%
Administrative Assistant	76%	15%	5%	2%	2%
Overall Performance	68%	17%	6%	6%	3%

Hon. Robert J. Wonnell

Retention: Yes 97% | No 3%

Evaluations: 91

Attribute	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neutral	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge of the Law	69%	24%	3%	4%	0%
Communication	68%	26%	3%	2%	1%
Judicial Temperament	73%	21%	5%	0%	1%
Fairness & Impartiality	70%	19%	7%	4%	0%
Punctuality	74%	20%	4%	1%	1%
Professionalism & Administration	74%	23%	2%	1%	0%
Administrative Assistant	75%	22%	2%	1%	0%
Overall Performance	65%	29%	3%	2%	1%

Survey Methodology

The Johnson County Bar Association conducts a Judicial Evaluation Survey every even-numbered year in accordance with its bylaws. The survey coincides with judicial retention elections for judges of the Tenth Judicial District whose terms expire that year.

For the 2026 survey, 5,496 invitations were distributed to Kansas attorneys. Because there is no available method to identify all attorneys who regularly appear before individual Tenth Judicial District judges, invitations were distributed to a broader attorney pool.

Attorneys were instructed to evaluate only those judges with whom they had sufficient professional experience to provide an informed assessment. Attorneys were not required to evaluate every judge, and the number of evaluations therefore varies by judge.

Each invitation contained a unique survey link that could be used only once. A total of 387 attorneys participated in the 2026 survey.

Survey responses were confidential and anonymous. Results are reported only in aggregate, and neither the Johnson County Bar Association nor the judges evaluated have access to individual substantive responses.

Independent Survey Administration

The 2026 Judicial Evaluation Survey was independently administered by Brilliant Nonprofit Solutions. The independent administrator handled survey distribution, response collection, analysis, and preparation of the results.

Independent administration helps preserve the confidentiality of participating attorneys and ensures that individual survey responses are not accessible to JoCo Bar staff, Board members, or the judges evaluated.

About the Results

The results reflect the views of the attorneys who participated in the survey and should not be interpreted as statistically representative of all attorneys who received the survey or of the broader legal community.

The Johnson County Bar Association publishes judicial evaluation results as an informational resource for attorneys and the public. JoCo Bar does not make judicial retention recommendations or endorse candidates for judicial office.

Kansas Appellate Court Evaluations

The Kansas Bar Association also conducts judicial retention surveys for Kansas appellate judges. Updated Court of Appeals survey results will be published by the Kansas Bar Association.

View Kansas Bar Association Results