Latest news with #HB2106
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Three lawsuits confirm that Kansas lawmakers concocted menacing attacks on civil rights
The Ad Astra statue atop the Kansas Statehouse takes aim against a wall of gray clouds on May 2, 2025. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) In their apparent eagerness to save money and do right by taxpayers, perhaps Kansas Republican leaders could try passing laws that don't trample on the rights of their constituents. That's my only response to lawsuits filed throughout May that highlight the downright sloppy lawmaking that has become a hallmark of our state's rushed, secretive legislative session. Bills are introduced and rubber-stamped in committee, testimony from experts is ignored, and the House and Senate send them through with nary a speed bump. Afterward, the taxpayers of Kansas have to foot the bill for any carelessness. Let's take a quick look at the lawsuits and their subjects. Up first, Kansas Reflector editor in chief Sherman Smith, who reported the following May 28. Two transgender teenagers and their parents are challenging a new Kansas law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the national ACLU filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Douglas County District Court on behalf of a 16-year-old trans boy and a 13-year-old trans girl. The lawsuit argues the new law violates state constitutional rights for equal protection, personal autonomy and parenting. Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from using surgery, hormones or puberty blockers to treat anyone younger than 18 who identifies with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. Health care providers who break the law may be subject to civil penalties and stripped of their license. You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here. Next, Reflector reporter Anna Kaminski wrote about another lawsuit on May 19. A Kansas reproductive rights advocacy group, backed by a Washington, D.C., law firm, sued state officials over a new law banning financial contributions from 'foreign nationals' to support or oppose constitutional amendments. The group, Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, argued in a complaint filed in federal court Friday that House Bill 2106, which passed the Legislature in April and is set to go into effect July 1, is broad, vague and unconstitutional. The group said the bill inhibits its ability to advocate for or against future constitutional amendments. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom and its donors have received contributions from foreign nationals, the lawsuit said. The complaint drew a connection between HB 2106 and opposition to the 2022 ballot measure that sought to limit reproductive rights. Voters rejected the proposed constitutional amendment by a 59-41 margin. You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here. But wait, there's still more! Here's senior reporter Morgan Chilson on May 6. Three advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit Monday in Douglas County District Court challenging the Kansas Legislature's attempt to 'arbitrarily' reject advance ballots of voters if the mail system fails to deliver them by Election Day. Kansas Appleseed, Loud Light and Disability Rights Center of Kansas are asking the court to find Senate Bill 4 unconstitutional. Defendants are Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew. SB 4, which the Legislature passed this year, disqualifies any mail-in ballots not received by 7 p.m. on Election Day. Previously, mail-in ballots were counted if they were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within three days later. You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here. We covered all of these proposals at various stages, from twinkles in legislators' eyes to enshrinement in the statute books. Leaders sent the anti-trans bill to Gov. Laura Kelly as their first act of business in the 2025 session. She allowed the foreign nationals ban to become law without her signature and a warning that it 'went too far.' The advance-voting bill was called 'pure partisan politics' by former Rep. Ann Mah. Sure, the deluge of wastewater emanating from the Statehouse in 2025 may have overwhelmed at times. But none of this should have come as a surprise. If people or groups believe the government has infringed on their rights — to medical care, to advocacy, to voting — no one can be surprised if they bring legal action. When senators and representatives cast votes on such issues, they decide whether the state should place a barrier in front of the people they represent. No amount of victim blaming or sanctimonious claptrap obscures the truth. Defending the laws falls to Attorney General Kris Kobach and his office. Who pays their salaries? You and me and all the people of Kansas. We're all on the hook for legislative foolishness. The state may win some or all of these suits. So may those who filed them. Regardless, their mere presence suggests that our elected officials tread far too easily into the swamps of ideological overreaction. Rather than representing all, they have bowed and scraped in service to a hateful few. We will see the consequences play out before judges in the months ahead. Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kansas abortion advocacy group sues state officials over law banning foreign contributions
Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, gives a speech on August 2, 2022, at a watch party after Kansans vote to keep abortion a constitutional right. (Lily O'Shea Becker/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — A Kansas reproductive rights advocacy group, backed by a Washington, D.C. law firm, sued state officials over a new law banning financial contributions from 'foreign nationals' to support or oppose constitutional amendments. The group, Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, argued in a complaint filed in federal court Friday that House Bill 2106, which passed the Legislature in April and is set to go into effect July 1, is broad, vague and unconstitutional. The group said the bill inhibits its ability to advocate for or against future constitutional amendments. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom and its donors have received contributions from foreign nationals, the lawsuit said. The complaint drew a connection between HB 2106 and opposition to the 2022 ballot measure that sought to limit reproductive rights. Voters rejected the proposed constitutional amendment by a 59-41 margin. 'Rather than accept that an overwhelming majority of Kansas voters rejected the 2022 Amendment on its merits, opponents of abortion rights blamed 'foreign influence' for their failure at the ballot box,' the complaint said. 'Moreover, HB 2106 was meant to make it harder for KCF specifically to engage in advocacy related to Kansas constitutional ballot initiatives.' Kansans for Constitutional Freedom was the primary engine of opposition to the 2022 amendment, spending more than $11 million in a statewide campaign encouraging voter turnout. In the lawsuit, the organization said it intends to advocate for or against constitutional amendments in the future. The lawsuit references a forthcoming constitutional amendment that will appear on voters' ballots in August 2026 that seeks to elect Kansas Supreme Court justices by popular vote, abandoning the current nomination and appointment system. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom said it already secured funding to oppose the amendment, but HB 2106 would hamper the organization's plans. The organization argues the restrictions within HB 2106 are 'targeted not at the 'foreign interests' Kansas claims it means to silence, but at those who associate with them.' 'Through a series of exceedingly broad, highly invasive, and at times completely incomprehensible restrictions, HB 2106 will muzzle the speech of U.S. citizens and domestic organizations far more effectively than that of the foreign nationals Kansas claims it means to target,' the lawsuit read. HB 2106 retroactively prohibits indirect or direct contributions from a foreign national used for promoting or opposing a constitutional amendment. Any person involved in campaigning for or against an amendment already has to submit a series of campaign finance reports, and the bill added a new provision requiring non-foreign donors to certify they haven't received more than $100,000 in the preceding four years from foreign nationals. If the law goes into effect, any person who knowingly received $100,000 or more in contributions from a foreign national in the past four years is barred from participating in constitutional advocacy for up to four years. The lawsuit named nine members of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, the commission's executive director, Wade Wiebe, and Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who is permitted under HB 2106 to bring criminal charges against anyone who violates its provisions. The ethics commission, which is set to be renamed as the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission under a new law that takes effect in July, is able to bring civil action against those who violate HB 2106. During the bill's legislative hearings, proponents took particular issue with the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a left-leaning dark money group that has received millions from foreigners and involved itself in ballot measure campaigns across the U.S. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom took in more than $1.5 million in donations from the fund in 2022, according to Open Secrets, an independent website that tracks money in politics. Topeka-based law firm Irigonegaray and Revenaugh, a criminal defense and personal injury firm, and the D.C.-based Elias Law Group, which has challenged and drawn ire from the Trump administration, are representing Kansans for Constitutional Freedom. Both firms also are involved in the recently filed lawsuit on behalf of three Kansas advocacy organizations challenging a new law that eliminates the three-day grace period for mail-in ballots.
