County auditor; appointment in counties with a population between 40,000 and 60,000; term; removal

19-601. County auditor; appointment in counties with a population between 40,000 and 60,000; term; removal. That in all counties containing over forty thousand (40,000) and not more than sixty thousand (60,000) inhabitants, there may be appointed by the district court of the judicial district in which such county is located one person, who shall have the qualifications of an elector, and who shall be styled "county auditor," and who shall hold his office for a period of two (2) years, unless sooner removed by the appointing power for cause, according to existing laws, and if so removed the cause thereof shall be made part of the record of the board of county commissioners. History: L. 1905, ch. 185, § 1; R.S. 1923, 19-601; L. 1925, ch. 132, § 1; L. 1941, ch. 188, § 1; L. 1951, ch. 219, § 1; L. 1968, ch. 254, § 1; July 1. Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Source or Prior Law: L. 1872, ch. 67, § 1; L. 1874, ch. 56, § 1; L. 1876, ch. 66, § 1; L. 1876, ch. 67, § 1; L. 1891, ch. 87, § 1. Cross References to Related Sections: Governor to make appointment when judge fails to act, see 75-117. Attorney General's Opinions: County budget and expenditures; officers responsible for development of annual report and ongoing account of items credited monthly. 1999-18. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Office of county auditor, where population less than 45,000, abolished. Lawson v. Comm'rs of Reno Co., 47 Kan. 271, 273, 27 P. 998. 2. All claims against county must be audited by county auditor. Gunning v. Wyandotte County, 81 Kan. 708, 711, 106 P. 999. 3. Appointment of county auditor must be made by district court. Sartin v. Snell, 87 Kan. 485, 125 P. 47. 4. Necessity for presentation of claim for tax refund under this and following sections considered. Atchison, T.&S.F. Rly. Co. v. Montgomery County Comm'rs, 121 Kan. 428, 247 P. 442. Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026