Latest news with #SCR1611
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maybe it's time the Kansas Legislature let us vote on what we want to vote on
It's not often the people of Kansas get to hold a 'referendum' on state legislation. In fact, they can't. At least not on their own. Under our state's constitution, we operate a representative democracy electing legislators to make decisions on our behalf and ultimately hold them accountable every 2-4 years. This indirect democracy can be viewed as a paternalistic relationship between electeds and electorate — a reassuring pat on the head from politicians that lawmaking is their province, and they will call us when needed. So any time our Legislature agrees to offer us a chance at direct power on one issue, we should stand up and take note. And any time our Legislature agrees to offer us a chance at direct power forever, we should stand up, take note, and run as fast as we can to our polling place before they change their minds. Which is why we should really take notice of what the conservative-controlled Legislature did last week when the required two-thirds majority passed SCR 1611. It's a proposed constitutional amendment asking voters on Aug. 4, 2026, if we should elect (not just retain) our seven Supreme Court justices. Not only do we get invited to dinner, but it's a permanent invite and we get to buy the groceries! That is not to say electing the Supreme Court is totally advisable. On its face, SCR 1611 is a de facto 'referendum' on the current merit-based selection process controlled by bar-appointed lawyers and governor-appointed citizens. Passed by 70% of the electorate in 1958 after Gov. Fred Hall's infamous triple-play scandal, the system was enacted to keep Supreme Court selections free of corruption, moneyed interests, and political bosses. But if you use your sunflower-colored glasses and squint through the Oz dust of debate, you might also see a glimmer of hope . . . direct democracy! Today, 26 states provide for some form of direct, or pure, democracy that bypass legislatures with citizen-initiated ballot measures for new laws (initiatives) and/or vetoes (referendums) through collection of signatures (petitions). Laws without lawmakers. Sadly, Kansas does not allow that; Gov. Joan Finney was the last to earnestly push the issue in the early 1990s. Technically, SCR 1611 is not direct democracy either, but it's close. It has no citizen-initiated lawmaking. But citizens gain a direct line to pick justices who enforce the biggest law (Kansas Constitution) and the weightiest legal question of our time (women's right to an abortion). So why stop there? The Kansas Constitution already allows citizen-initiated ballot measures for cities, counties and school districts. All adjoining states — Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Oklahoma — allow it. Sixty-four percent of states with part-time 'citizen' legislatures, like Kansas, allow it. Most of all, big issues supported by a majority of Kansans but ignored by legislative leadership — Medicaid expansion (72%), recreational marijuana (65%), a women's right to choose (65%), assault weapon bans (55%) — could be put to a vote of the people, once and for all. Even Senate President Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican and expected 2026 gubernatorial candidate who led the charge for SCR 1611, believes 'it's time to give the people the opportunity to assume that power and tear down firewalls and shine the light of democracy we all claim to support.' I couldn't agree more. If legislative leaders are truly ingenuous about tearing down judiciary firewalls for the people, their own firewalls should be next. Bill Fiander is a lecturer at Washburn University specializing in public administration, urban planning, and state/local government. He is the former planning and development director for the City of Topeka
Yahoo
22-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Kansas House throws weight behind mutated child care bill with loosened vaccine rules
The Kansas Statehouse greets visitors, lawmakers, advocates and the general public on March 18, 2025. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) Statehouse scraps Opinion editor Clay Wirestone's weekly roundup of legislative flotsam and jetsam. . Brace yourselves for an especially scrappy version of Statehouse scraps today. I have a mammoth column coming Monday, but I can't ignore my Saturday duties. So let's be quick yet purposeful. First up, from the good folks at Kansas Action for Children, a warning about Substitute for House Bill 2294, a child care bill that passed the House on Thursday. 'While we supported the previous bipartisan compromise, the work by the House Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development made this bill into something we can no longer support,' my former colleagues at KAC wrote on Friday. Why's that? you ask. 'On Monday, the committee added two amendments that loosen vaccination requirements and could lead to deregulation of child care settings.' Oh. Oh, dear. The Immunize Kansas Coalition issued its own statement on the bill Friday. The group was 'very disappointed this provision was not removed from the bill before its passage by the House (this change wasn't even mentioned in the much too brief floor debate!), especially now as Kansas is facing a significant measles outbreak. Our youngest children in child care settings — sometimes too young to be vaccinated yet for diseases like measles — are most at risk for complications from infectious diseases, and they rely on everyone around them to keep them safe.' The bill now heads over to the Senate. It's clearly one to keep watching as the session shifts into overdrive. Looks like we're going to have a dramatic and costly election next year to determine how the state Supreme Court works — and whether abortion remains legal in Kansas. Stung by their failure to ban the widely popular medical procedure, Republicans have decided to target the legal system itself. (National Republicans seem to be doing the same.) The proposed constitutional amendment would switch Kansas to direct elections of justices, a surefire way to make big-money court elections part of the landscape. What a delightful prospect. As you might expect, advocacy groups had a lot to say. 'This is a blatant power grab by extremists who refuse to accept that Kansans have spoken — loudly and repeatedly — for fair courts and personal freedom, including the right to abortion,' said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes. 'SCR 1611 isn't about judicial integrity; it's about rigging the system to force an agenda that has already been defeated. These lawmakers lost in court and at the ballot box. You don't get to fire the referee when you're losing the game, and Kansans will see this for exactly what it is. We'll dust off our Vote No signs and win again.' 'This is a blatant attack by the legislators on our justices, and it's part of a decades-long pattern of politicians attempting to punish the judicial branch for issuing decisions on education and reproductive freedom that they disagree with,' said Micah Kubic, ACLU of Kansas executive director. 'We are confident that, just as they did in 2022, the people of Kansas will see this attack for what it is — and once again take action to defend their constitutional rights from the power grabs of extremist politicians in Topeka.' Finally, from the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association: 'There have been no issues regarding the Kansas Supreme Court that necessitated the proponents' push for this constitutional amendment. We trust Kansas voters will reject this amendment. We strongly believe that when voters are exposed to the realities of watching our state's Justices having to raise money and campaign for their seats and the negative impact it will have on our state, they will vote no.' Funny, isn't it, that the issues Kansans get to vote on aren't Medicaid expansion or cannabis legalization, but (once again) banning abortion. In the frothy brew of Statehouse news, these questions floated to the top for me this week. A majority of senators voted against increasing special education funding and eliminating continuous eligibility for Medicaid coverage this week. Do they plan on running for office again? Why do so many Kansas officials see open records laws as suggestions rather than, you know, laws? Sure, a black mass might be 'a despicable, blasphemous and offensive sacrilege to not only Catholics but all people of goodwill.' But it's also protected speech under the First Amendment. Right? Quoth state Sen. Virgil Peck about cheap office space for reporters at the Statehouse: 'When I mention this in a forum back home, people come unglued: 'You are only charging $100 a year for the press to write stories about you,' that frequently are inaccurate. Those are my words.' What stories does Peck think are inaccurate? When he suggested shooting illegal immigrants? Or when he talked about 'God's special creation — females' in supporting an anti-trans bill? What department do Kansas Republican lawmakers think works well? If the answer is none, how is that possible given their decades-long hold of legislative power? Apparently, House Speaker Dan Hawkins' dislike of journalists has been taken to a new level in the chamber he oversees. As I tried to visit a House leadership office Friday, I was stopped by guards who said I couldn't even knock on a door or see a secretary. I had to have an appointment, they said, or be called back. No, the fact that I was a journalist made no difference. Let's be clear: Every other representative has an office accessible through Statehouse hallways. On the other hand, House leaders' offices are located at the front the of the chamber and overseen by these handful of brave souls. What about Hawkins' or Majority Leader Chris Croft's constituents? Can they only glimpse the office doors in the distance as well? 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
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kansas voters to decide future of Supreme Court
TOPEKA (KSNT) – Kansas voters will decide whether they want to start electing Supreme Court justices, a move the state's governor has come out against. The August 2026 vote would change the state's constitution, which allows the governor to pick replacements for vacant seats on the Kansas Supreme Court from a slate of three nominees recommended by a nominating committee under SCR 1611. If amended, the new law would allow voters to appoint justices. Lawmakers voted Wednesday, March 19 to send the matter to a public vote. The legislation follows a 2022 vote that restricts lawmakers from passing new abortion regulations in the state. What is blocking construction for the $49 million home for veterans in Topeka? 'I think it's a mistake and a mistake that Kansans learned from back in 1957 with the triple play, when there was also just shenanigans going on regarding the court. You know, I will remind Kansans that the legislature tried to pull this kind of maneuver by putting a very serious ballot issue on the primary ballot. And they did that in 2022 with the abortion amendment. Kansans came out and made it very clear what they thought about this.' For more Capitol Bureau news, click here. Keep up with the latest breaking news in northeast Kansas by downloading our mobile app and by signing up for our news email alerts. Sign up for our Storm Track Weather app by clicking here. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
