Legislative Issues – 2015
The 2015 Kansas Legislature convened on Monday, January 12, 2015. The 2015 session runs for 90 days until approximately mid-April. The 2015 Legislative Session is the first-session of the biennial legislature. Elections for all House members occurred in November 2014. Bills introduced into the 2015 Legislative Session will be eligible for consideration by both the 2015 and 2016 sessions of the Legislature.
For the 2015 Session of the Kansas Legislature, individual requests for bill introductions must be submitted before February 2, 2015; committee introductions must be before February 9, 2015. All bills must pass their house of origin on or before February 27, 2015 (with some exceptions) or they are “dead” for the session. All bills must pass the opposite house from origin on or before March 25, 2015 (second-house turn-around). All Bills must be considered for final action (other than bills from “exempt” committees) on or before April 3, 2015, when the Kansas House and Senate take “first adjournment.” The Legislature returned for its “Veto Session” on April 29, 2015. The Legislature will return again in late-May 2015 for adjournment sine die.
But that isn’t quite how it happened.
More disputes arose at the beginning of the 2015 Legislative Session than usual — primarily about legislative procedures to be used during the biennial 2015-2016 Legislative Session. One of the “hot” procedural issues was “bill-bundling”: the practice of combining multiple bills into another to insure passage of all bills. (See Garden City Telegram, “Kansas Legislative Agenda Heavy with Transparency Bills.”) In the end, the Chambers agreed to a “four-bill” limit of bills that could be bundled. But that didn’t seem to limit legislative desires. At “second-house” turn-around, one respected lobbyist overheard two legislative leaders comment while they were preparing for upcoming conference committee meetings “mutual concern over lack of vehicles to bundle bills.” So goes the legislature.
And though the Legislature was supposed to return for a “veto session” on April 29, 2015, there was only one veto to consider – a veto that disapproved one of the many ill-thought-out bills of the session: a bill imposing state-wide limitations and requirements on “ride-sharing” companies such as Uber. (The House and Senate overrode the governor’s veto, setting up another drama-filled — and totally unnecessary — week of negotiations by the legislators with Uber to stem bad press and bad decisionmaking. See Lawrence Journal-World, “Kansas Senate, House override Brownback’s veto of rules for firms like Uber” and “Kansas lawmakers strike deal to keep Uber in state.”) Instead, the body showed the world its inability to function as a rational body. As it approached the longest legislative session in State history, instead of focusing on the good of the citizenry and attaining a rational and thoughtful budget and tax policy, bills were approved to punish teachers, non-compliant school districts, low-income and the needy, the courts, and other disfavored groups, agencies, government branches, and people.
The following family law and related bills and concurrent resolutions were pending in the 2015 Kansas Legislature:
Senate:
H Sub for SB12: Crimes; battery on a judge, attorney, or court services officer Servicemembers; diversion and sentencing Civil commitment of sexually violent predators. (PASSED SENATE 40-0)(SUBSTITUTE PASSED HOUSE 112–6) (CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(CCR PASSED HOUSE 111–0)(CCR PASSED SENATE 36–2)(Governor signed: June 9, 2015)(EFFECTIVE July 1, 2015)
The bill was assigned to the Senate Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice and set for hearing on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 9:30 o’clock a.m. in Room 118-N, with final committee action scheduled on Thursday, February 5, 2015.
The Judiciary Committee reported the bill to the full Senate favorably, with amendments, on February 5, 2015. The Senate Committee adopted an amendment proposed by the Kansas Community Corrections Association (KCCA) adding community corrections officers to those persons protected by the bill; amendments proposed by Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services (KDADS) adding special assistant county and district attorneys and special assistant attorneys general to the definition of “attorney,” clarifying the definition of “mental health employee,” and removing a reference to the Rainbow Mental Health Facility were also approved; as well as was an amendment adding public defenders and related defense counsel to the definition of “attorney.” The bill was placed on General Orders for debate on February 26, 2015, and on Emergency Final Action, the bill passed as amended 40-0.
In the House, the bill was assigned to the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice, which set the bill for hearing on Tuesday, March 10, 2015, at 1:30 PM in Room 152-S. On March 20, 2015, the bill was withdrawn from Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice and referred instead to Committee on Veterans, Military and Homeland Security. On Monday, March 23, 2015, the Committee on Veterans, Military and Homeland Security recommended that a substitute bill be approved by the House. House Substitute for SB12 would add the following provision to KSA 12-4415 that certain mental health conditions of servicemembers be considered in making the decision whether to allow for diversion:
“(5) whether there is a probability that the defendant committed such crime as a result of an injury, including major depressive disorder, polytrauma, post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury, connected to service in a combat zone, as defined in section 112 of the federal internal revenue code of 1986, in the armed forces of the United States of America.”
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 (second-house turn-around day), the Speaker withdrew the bill from the Calendar and referred it to Committee on Taxation, an exempt committee. On May 7, 2015, the bill was raised on General Orders during unusual Veto Session consideration of a non-conferenced bill. The House Committee of the Whole recommended that the substitute bill be passed, and the full House approved the bill 112–6.
On May 11, 2015, the Senate non-concurred asking for the appointment of a Conference Committee.
The contents of House Sub. for SB12, as it entered conference, were included in the conference committee report for HB2154, which the governor signed on May 29, 2015. The Conference Committee on House Sub. for SB12 therefore agreed to replace the contents of the bill with the modified contents of SB149, regarding civil commitment of sexually violent predators. The bill would provide that existing and new law governing such civil commitment shall be known as the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (Act).
The House adopted the CCR on June 1, 2015 (during the “veto session”) 111–0. The Senate followed suit on the same day (June 1, 2015) with a vote of 36–2. The bill was enrolled and presented to the governor on June 5, 2015. The governor signed the bill on June 9, 2015. It became effective July 1, 2015.
SB15: Judiciary; statutory charges for filing of dispositive motions, summary judgment (Rolled Into HB2005)
This bill modifies the filing fee for summary judgment motions imposed by a bill passed by the 2014 Kansas Legislature. The bill would impose a $195 fee upon the filing of any “dispositive motion” (defined as a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment or a motion for judgment as a matter of law. The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, January 28, 2015 in Room 346-S.
At that hearing, a representative of the Kansas Supreme Court asked the Committee to amend the bill to clarify the fee in a way that it could not be avoided merely by changing the title of a motion (from motion for summary judgment to motion for [something else, but with the same effect]) and that this fee could be assessed as costs on an adverse party when a state or municipality files such a motion and prevails upon it. On February 20, 2015, the Senate Committee adopted the Supreme Court’s proposed amendment applying the fee regardless of the title of the motion and recommended that the Senate pass the bill as amended. The Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around and it was not referred to an exempt committee. Instead, the bill was inserted by Senate Committee into HB2005 upon which it was working (see that bill for its progress).
SB19: Administrative Law; electronic service of orders and notices under the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act and the Kansas Judicial Review Act
Introduced at the request of the Kansas Judicial Council, SB19 would:
- amend the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA) to allow electronic service of items filed by parties, petitions for intervention, orders, notices, and certain other documents; an
- amend the Kansas Act for Judicial Review to allow electronic service of an order, pleading, or other matter when authorized by Supreme Court rule or a local rule
The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which heard testimony about the bill on Thursday, January 22, 2015, 10:30 AM in Room 346-S. The Committee passed the bill out to the full Senate favorably, with a technical amendment, on February 4, 2015. The Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around and it was not referred to an exempt committee.
SB37: CINC; Enacting the Kansas Foster Parents’ Bill of Rights Act
This is a re-introduction of a bill that was considered by the 2014 Legislature (2014 S Sub SB394) (See 2014 Kansas Legislative Review) The bill was assigned to the Judiciary Committee and scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, 10:30 AM Room in Room 346-S. The bill did not make it out of committee and the Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
SB44: Docket fees; electronic filing and management fund (PASSED SENATE 40-0)(See SB51)(Rolled Into HB2005)
This bill authorizes the Supreme Court to use electronic filing development fees for its general budget (98% of which is to fund judicial branch personnel). The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, January 28, 2015. The bill was passed out to the full Senate favorably, with a technical amendment, on February 4, 2015. The Senate Committee of the Whole debated the bill on February 25, 2015, which approved the amended bill for passage. On February 26, 2015, the Senate approved the bill 40-0.
The bill was sent to the House where it was assigned to the Judiciary Committee. The bill was set for hearing Tuesday, March 10, 2015, at 3:30 PM in Room 112-N. On March 12, 2015, the House inserted the provisions of this bill into SB51 to create a combined Judiciary filing and fees bill (which was then inserted into HB2005 (see HB2005 for further history).
SB51: Judiciary; fees and costs, judicial surcharge (SENATE PASSED 34-6)(Rolled Into HB2005)
This bill extends authorization of the judicial surcharge from 2015 to 2017. The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, January 28, 2015. On February 9, 2015, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the bill out of committee, amending the bill to remove the sunset provision, making the surcharges a permanent source of funding. The Senate Committee of the Whole debated the bill on February 25, 2015, which approved the amended bill for passage. On February 26, 2015, the Senate approved the bill 34-6, with Senators Abrams, Olson, Ostmeyer, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Tyson voting NO.
The bill was sent to the House where it was assigned to the Judiciary Committee. The bill was set for hearing Tuesday, March 10, 2015, at 3:30 PM in Room 112-N. On March 12, 2015, the House Committee amended the bill to restore the sunset date and extension (as the bill was introduced) and to add the provisions of SB44 regarding the Electronic Filing and Management Fund to create a combined Judiciary filing and fees bill.
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 (second-house turn-around day), the bill was stricken from the House Calendar under Joint Rule 1507 for failure to make it out of the second-house before deadline. But the bill was inserted by Senate Committee into HB2005 (see that bill for its progress).
SB57: Kansas power of attorney act (SENATE PASSED 40-0)
This bill would make various changes to the Kansas Power of Attorney act, to require a notice of rights be given to anyone signing a durable power of attorney, and a notice of responsibilities to any person who would exercise those powers of attorney. The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, February 3, 2015.
The bill was passed out of Committee without amendment for Senate consideration on February 5, 2015. The Senate Committee of the Whole debated the bill on February 25, 2015, which approved the amended bill for passage. On February 26, 2015, the Senate approved the bill 40-0.
The bill was sent to the House where it was assigned to the Judiciary Committee. The bill was set for hearing Wednesday, March 11, 2015, at 3:30 PM in Room 112-N.
SB58: Administrative; Kansas judicial review act; venue (SENATE PASSED 39-1)
This bill would place venue for all but certain specified administrative actions in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled the bill for hearing on Thursday, January 29, 2015, 10:30 AM in Room 346-S.
The Senate Committee amended the bill to add an exception for proceedings involving the civil commitment of sexually violent predators, and passed it out for Senate consideration on February 5, 2015. The Senate Committee of the Whole debated the bill on February 25, 2015, which approved the amended bill for passage. On February 26, 2015, the Senate approved the bill 39-1, with Senator Pyle voting NO, sending the bill to the House for consideration.
The bill was introduced into the House on February 26, 2015, assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill was scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N.
SB59: Judiciary; Clarifying district magistrate judge jurisdiction (PASSED SENATE 40-0)(See HB2111)
This bill would make clear that magistrate judges can hear certain kinds of cases only with the explicit consent of the parties (e.g. contested divorce actions, claims seeking more than $10,000). The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, January 28, 2014.
In the Senate Committee, representatives of the Kansas District Magistrate Judges Association and Kansas Judicial Branch testified in support of the bill. A representative of the Kansas District Judges Association testified as an opponent to the bill with a suggested amendment. The conferees stated that 2014 S Sub HB2065 was enacted to extend magistrate judge jurisdiction, but that issues had arisen implementing that bill’s provisions.
The Senate Committee adopted an amendment presented as a compromise between the parties that reorganized some of the language in the bill and added a list of specific actions over which a district magistrate judge would not have jurisdiction without consent of the parties (including contested divorce proceedings). The bill was passed out of committee with the amendment on February 20, 2015, for consideration by the Senate. On February 26, 2015, with turn-around looming, the bill was withdrawn from the Calendar and referred to the Committee on Federal and State Affairs, an exempt committee. The bill was withdrawn from Committee and placed on General Orders for debate on March 10, 2015. The Senate Committee of the Whole passed the bill on to the full Senate by voice vote on March 10, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the bill passed 40-0 in a package including the confirmation of two Brownback appointees, including Kathryn Gardner to the Kansas Court of Appeals, and SB105.
The bill was introduced to the House after Senate approval. It was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.
SB104: Judiciary; Use of two-way electronic audio-visual communications
This bill allows for the use of two-way electronic audio-visual communications (e.g. Skype) for non-evidentiary appearance in various court proceedings. The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled hearings for Monday, February 16, 2015, in Room 346-S.
The Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) testified in support of the bill, but requested an amendment allowing two-way electronic audio-visual communication during child in need of care (CINC) proceedings. The Senate Committee adopted the proposed amendment and also made a technical amendment providing consistency in references to audio-visual communications, passing the bill out on February 20, 2015, for consideration by the Senate. The Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around and it was not referred to an exempt committee.
SB105: UIFSA; enacting 2008 amendments to the uniform interstate family support act (PASSED SENATE 40-0)(PASSED HOUSE 118-0)(GOVERNOR SIGNED: MAY 19, 2015)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015)
This bill fulfills the requirements of Congress included in the “Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014” to implement the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (Concluded 23 November 2007) by passing the 2008 amendments to the uniform interstate family support act.
This bill would bring Kansas in line with other states and Congressional mandate by updating UIFSA 1996, which Kansas passed in 1997. A summary of the Congressional requirements to implement the Convention are detailed in the publication “The Hague Convention Treaty on Recovery of International Child Support and H.R. 1896.” A handout produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) provides a good summary of all of the provisions in the “Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014.”
The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, February 3, 2015. Ronald W. Nelson presented testimony for the Kansas Judicial Council supporting the bill. The committee “worked” the bill on Thursday, February 5, 2015 and passed it out favorably on February 10, 2015, placing it on the Senate Consent Calendar.
On February 12, 2015, the bill was removed from the Senate Consent Calendar and placed on General Orders for debate. On February 26, 2015, with turn-around looming, the bill was withdrawn from the Calendar and referred to the Committee on Federal and State Affairs, an exempt committee. On March 10, 2015, the bill was withdrawn from committee and placed on General Orders for debate. The Senate Committee of the Whole passed the bill on to the full Senate by voice vote on March 10, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the bill passed 40-0 in a package including the confirmation of two Brownback appointees, including Kathryn Gardner to the Kansas Court of Appeals, and SB59.
The bill was introduced to the House on March 12, 2015 after Senate approval and was assigned to the House Federal and State Affairs Committee. The Committee held a hearing on Friday, March 20, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 346-S. Ronald W. Nelson presented testimony for the Kansas Judicial Council supporting the bill. The Committee worked the bill immediately after testimony finished (because it was the last day for Committee action before the second-house turn-around deadline). After discussion, the Committee approved the bill for passage by the full House on voice vote, with only Rep. Bradford voting “no.” The bill was placed on the General Orders for debate as a “blessed” bill.
Although the bill was not heard during Regular Session, in an unusual change of procedure, the House Committee of the Whole debated the bill – and 10 other bills – during the “Veto Session” on Thursday, May 7, 2015. Passed through on voice vote (with one vocal opponent heard in the background), SB105 was approved on Emergency Final Action shortly after 5:00 pm, May 7, 2015 by a 118–0 vote. The House approval of SB105 sent the bill to the governor for approval.
SB114: Birth certificate amendments; charge for non-judicial personnel
Authorization for the Kansas supreme court to impose a charge, not to exceed $22 per certified order, on requests for certified copies of a birth certificate to fund the costs of non-judicial personnel within the judicial branch. The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing on Thursday, February 19, 2015, 10:30 AM Room 346-S. The bill did not make it out of committee and the Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
SB129: Reports of abuse or neglect concerning children and certain adults
Provides how reports of abuse and neglect are reported when the department of children and families is closed. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice. The hearing on the bill was cancelled
scheduled for Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 118-N. The bill did not make it out of committee and the Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
SB148: Children and families; enacting the “Safe Families Act” (SEE SB 159)
Borrowing from a horrible Oklahoma law passed in 2014, this bill would allow “A parent or legal custodian of a child may . . . to delegate to another person known as the attorney in fact, for a period not to exceed one year, the powers regarding the care and custody of the child, except the power to consent to marriage or adoption of the child, the performance or inducement of an abortion on or for the child, or the termination of parental rights to the child.”
The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and set for hearing on Thursday, February 12, 2015, at10:30 am in Room 346-S. The Committee recommended that the bill be passed, without amendment, on February 19, 2015.
On February 26, 2015, during Senate debate on SB159, Senator Pilcher-Cook moved to insert the entire text of SB148, the “Safe Families Act,” into SB159. Senator Pettey raised a question of germaneness; but the question of germaneness was overruled. The Senate Committee of the Whole adopted the amendment on a voice vote. The Senate then voted passing the amended bill 30-4, with Senators Faust-Goudeau, Haley, Hensley, and Holland voting NO. (Senators Francisco, Hawk, McGinn, O’Donnell, Pettey, and Wolf were absent and did not vote). On March 11, 2015, SB148 itself was stricken from the Calendar under Rule 1507.
SB157: CINC; providing that the child in need of care code does not permit any person to compel a parent to medicate a child if the parent is acting in accordance with medical advice from a physician. (SENATE PASSED 38-2)
The bill amends language in the Child in Need of Care (CINC) Act. Purportedly, the bill was drafted to prevent schools from ‘overmedicating’ students; except that the language in the bill doesn’t address schools — at all. Instead, because the amended statute is in the Child in Need of Care Act, the bill addresses children who have been or might be removed from a parent’s care because the child has been abused or neglected, is truant, or the parent is unable or unfit to care for the child.
Since the amended language is placed in the CINC act, if enacted, it mean that the state and the professionals contracted by it to take care of children while the child is in state custody after removal from a parent’s home for abuse or neglect could NOT medicate the child if the (unfit) parent objected to the treatment. Although, legitimately, this provision would mean that a parent with beliefs in faith healing or who was a member of the Church of Christ, Scientist, could object to the institution of treatment or giving mediation that is contrary to that parent’s beliefs, it would also mean that a parent who had medically neglected a child (e.g. failing to adequately treat a child with diabetes, severe mental health disorder, significant depression, cancer, etc) would be able to prevent the proper treatment of a child for those beliefs. The limitation on that parental authority is only that it must be “in accordance with medical advice from a physician”; but that limitation does not necessarily put any real limits on the parent’s direction — because as we all know, if you want someone to say something you can always find someone to say it (or at least keep looking until you find someone who does).
The provision that, “The actions of a parent in such circumstances shall not constitute a basis for a determination that a child is a child in need of care, for the removal of custody of a child from the parent, or for the termination of parental rights without a specific showing that there is a causal relation between the actions and harm to the child” is directly tied to concerns expressed in the last paragraph. The bill appears to be directly written to stop the state from stepping into a situation to treat a child who is not being adequately treated by a parent because that parent is following that parent’s view of what is best for the child (supported by that parent’s self-selected physician).
The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled hearings for Tuesday, February 17, 2015, in Room 346-S at 3:30 p.m. The bill passed out of committee with a ‘do pass’ recommendation. It was placed on General Orders for February 26, 2015 as the first bill for consideration by the Committee of the Whole. On February 26, 2015, the Senate passed the bill on Emergency Final Action by a vote of 38-2, with Senators Longbine, Schmidt voting NO.
The bill was the submitted for consideration in the House, where it was assigned to the House Committee on Judiciary. The bill was scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N. Ronald W. Nelson presented written testimony in opposition to the bill. The bill passed out of committee March 19, 2015, with Chairman Barker breaking a tie-vote.
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, the bill was stricken from the Calendar because it had not been voted on before second-house turn-around.
But on Monday, March 30, 2015, the House-Senate Judiciary Conference Committee met for the first time after second-house turn-around to attempt to resolve differences on ‘conferenceable bill’ (bills that have passed at least one house). During those discussions, Judiciary Conference Committee members discussed trying to bundle four child-related bills: SB133 (immunity from criminal prosecution for possession of alcohol by minor seeking medical assistance for another), SB157 , SB159 (‘custody’ powers of attorney) and HB2336 (risk assessment tools for juvenile detention facility placement) in certain juvenile cases (of which only HB2336 had passed both houses).
SB158: Children; establishing the CARE family program for foster care.
This bill directs that “the secretary shall establish a special category of foster care to be known as a CARE family. A CARE family may be selected and licensed by the secretary only if the family meets the requirements specified” in the bill:
“(1) A husband and wife team married for at least seven years, in a faithful, loving and caring relationship and with no sexual relations outside of the marriage;
“(2) submit to a background check on the husband and wife;
“(3) no current use of tobacco by anyone in the family’s home;
“(4) no history of unlawful drug use by anyone in the family’s home;
“(5) no alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverages in the family’s home;
“(6) both the husband and wife have attained at least a high school diploma or equivalent;
“(7) either the husband or wife, or both, does not work outside the home;
“(8) the family is involved in a social group larger than the family that meets regularly, preferably at least weekly; and
“(9) provide the secretary at least three references from people that personally know the family well.”
The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled hearings for Wednesday, February 11, 2015 in Room 346-S. At that hearing, the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Forrest Knox (R-Altoona) requested the Legislature create “a special category of foster parent distinguished by a faithful, heterosexual marriage of at least seven-years.” That hearing caused an uproar – especially coming on the heels of the governor’s announcement that he was overturning former Governor Kathleen Sebelius’s Executive Orders protecting state workers’ from adverse job actions based upon their sexual orientation or or gender identity. This bill – and others like it – are likely to cause the public shock at the legislature as happened in 2014 with the “discrimination-in-the-name-of-religion bill.”
The bill was not worked by of Committee.
SB159: CINC; law enforcement taking a child into custody for parent drug use; Enacting the safe families act; power of attorney for care and custody of a child. (SENATE PASSED, AS AMENDED, 30-4)
As originally introduced, this bill would include as an additional basis for which a law enforcement officer “shall take a child under 18 years of age into custody.” The added basis was when the officer, “reasonably believes that there is a violation of article 57 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto, [i.e. Crimes Involving Controlled Substances] occurring in the child’s residence that threatens the safety of the child.” The language would have allowed an officer to remove a child whose safety was threatened for crimes including offenses all the way from “manufacturing controlled substances” to “unlawful representation that noncontrolled substance is controlled substance” and “unlawful use of toxic vapors.”
The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, in Room 346-S at 3:30 p.m. On February 24, 2015, the Committee passed the bill out of committee for consideration by the full Senate with an amendment changing the standard to be used by law enforcement from “reasonably believes that there is” to “has probable cause to believe that” the child was in danger.
The Senate Committee of the Whole debated the bill on February 26, 2015. During debate, Senator Pilcher-Cook moved to amend the bill by inserting the entire text of SB148, the “Safe Families Act,” which had been heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 9, 2015 and worked and passed out of committee with a favorable recommendation on February 19, 2015 (also introduced, heard, and worked in the House as HB2244). Senator Pettey raised a question of germaneness; the question of germaneness was overruled. The Senate Committee of the Whole adopted the amendment on a voice vote. The Senate then voted passing the amended bill 30-4, with Senators Faust-Goudeau, Haley, Hensley, and Holland voting NO. (Senators Francisco, Hawk, McGinn, O’Donnell, Pettey, and Wolf were absent and did not vote).
When the bill was introduced into the House, it was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The amended bill was scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N. Ronald W. Nelson presented written testimony in opposition to the bill. The bill did not make it out of committee before second-house turn-around.
On Monday, March 30, 2015, however, the House-Senate Judiciary Conference Committee met for the first time after second-house turn-around and discussed trying to bundle four child-related bills together, even though SB159 had not made it out of House Committee: SB133 (immunity from criminal prosecution for possession of alcohol by minor seeking medical assistance for another), SB157 , SB159 (‘custody’ powers of attorney) and HB2336 (risk assessment tools for juvenile detention facility placement) in certain juvenile cases (of which only HB2336 had passed both houses).
SB160: Parental Rights; termination, requiring court action terminating parental rights in a child in need of care case.
Amends the Kansas Revised Child in Need of Care Code to require parental rights termination within 6 months of any finding that a parent is “unfit.” The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled hearings for Tuesday, February 17, 2015, in Room 346-S at 3:30 p.m. The bill did not make it out of committee and the Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
SB166: Kansas Rule of Law Restoration Act; immigration
Just as inane as it sounds.
The bill did not receive a hearing and did make it out of committee. The Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
SB183: Courts; debts dormant judgments, court costs, fees, fines and restitution. (PASSED SENATE 38-2)(See HB2111)
This bill, as originally introduced at request of the Kansas Supreme Court, would have allowed the contracting agent’s cost of collection for debt recovered through that program shall be the amount established by contract minus the collection assistance fee imposed by the director of accounts and reports of the department of administration. The Attorney General presented testimony proposing an amendment replacing references to the Attorney General. The Senate Committee amended the bill with the Attorney General’s and DCF’s proposed amendments. The Senate Committee of the Whole adopted the Committee amendments; and the bill passed as amended by the Judiciary Committee Yea: 38 Nay: 2.
The bill was submitted to the House where it was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The House Judiciary Committee scheduled hearings for Monday, March 16, 2015, at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N. After first placing the contents of SB183 into SB184, the House Committee reversed itself (after the bill was re-referred to committee at first-house turn-around) instead amending SB183 by adding into it the contents of SB184, as amended by Senate Committee (dormancy of court judgments.
Placed on the General Calendar March 23, 2015, the bill was stricken from the Calendar on March 25, 2015, when it did not pass the House before the second-house turn-around deadline.
H Sub SB184: Civil Procedure; dormant judgments Courts; relating to court costs, fees, fines and restitution; debts owed to courts Driver’s licenses; requiring certain individuals to enter into a payment plan to receive restricted driving privileges (PASSED SENATE 40-0)
This bill was originally introduced in the Senate Committee on Judiciary at the request of the Kansas Supreme Court. As originally drafted, the bill would have protected from dormancy and expiration any “judgment for court costs, fees, fines or restitution” if not already dormant July 1, 2015. The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and hearing held on February 16, 2015, at 10:30 am in Room 346-S. At the hearing, the Kansas Association of District Court Clerks and Administrators testified in support of the bill stating that the bill would simplify the debt collection process and increase the likelihood of collecting on court costs and restitution. On February 19, 2015, the Committee recommended that the bill be passed and placed on Senate Consent Calendar. The Senate considered the bill on final action February 25, 2015, passing the bill Yea: 40 Nay: 0.
The bill was introduced into the House on February 26, 2015 and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill was heard on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N. The House Committee recommended various amendments to the bill.
On March 18, 2015, the Judiciary Committee amended the bill to include language allowing the judicial administrator to into contracts with outside agencies for the collection of court debts and restitution awards (incorporating SB183, as amended by Senate Committee). As amended, the Committee recommended that the bill be passed and placed on the Calendar. But on March 20, 2015, the bill was withdrawn from Calendar and re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
In its second go-around at the bill, the House Judiciary Committee placed the original contents of SB184 into SB183 (thus reversing the process it had earlier used) and recommended that the contents of HB2188 (payment plans for persons failing to comply with a traffic citation) be made a substitute bill for SB184. (Note: HB2188 had been heard by the House Committee on Transportation, which earlier failed to report the bill out of committee.) The substitute bill was passed out of Committee and placed on the General Calendar on March 23, 2015. On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 (second-house turn-around day), the bill was stricken from the Calendar under Rule 1507.
SB195: Child Support; reporting of arrearages to consumer credit reporting agencies; distribution of support payments
This bill would strike language from current child support enforcement statutes that limits what information may be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies, allowing instead reporting “pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the secretary for children and families.”
The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled a hearing for Monday, February 23, 2015, 10:30 AM Room 346-S. The bill did not make it out of committee and the Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
SB197: Courts, Attorneys; applying the open meetings act to the supreme court nominating commission and judicial district nominating commissions; applying the open records act to attorney information; requiring attorneys to document eligibility requirements to vote in the commission selection process. (SENATE PASSED, AS AMENDED, 35-4)
This is another in the long line of bills introduced into the 2015 Kansas Legislature to attack merit selection of judges and the Supreme Court Nominating Commission.
The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled the bill for hearing on Wednesday, February 18, 2015, 10:30 AM Room 346-S. On February 24, 2015, the Committee passed out an amended version of the bill for full Senate consideration. The Senate Committee amended the bill to clarify that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General may designate someone to serve as a canvasser and to specify that a person appointed to fill a chairperson or lawyer vacancy on the Supreme Court Nominating Commission must be a licensed Kansas attorney living in Kansas. The bill was placed on General Orders for February 26, 2015.
The Senate Committee of the Whole adopted amendments limiting the purpose for which a nominating commission may recess for a closed or executive meeting, clarifying that the KOMA provisions do not supersede a nominating commission’s discretion in closing a record or portion of a record pursuant to any applicable KORA exception (by Senator King), and requiring the disclosure of the names and cities of residence of all applicants for the Court of Appeals (which the governor has steadfastly refused to open to anyone). On Emergency Final Action, the Senate passed the bill 35-4, with Senators Arpke, Haley, Holland, and Pettey voting NO. (Senator Francisco was present, but did not vote).
The bill was introduced into the House on February 26, 2015, assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill was scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N.
SB204: CINC; protecting the total amount of time for visitation granted to a person under the revised Kansas code for care of children
This bill would amend the Kansas code for care of children to require that:
“A person granted visitation rights shall be entitled to the total amount of time granted for visitation.” The bill provides that, “If a person is late for a scheduled visitation, the time missed due to such lateness shall not be deducted from the total amount of time granted for visitation, and reasonable accommodations shall be made to extend such scheduled visitation or to add such time to another scheduled visitation.”
This language would require a case worker allow a parent who showed up to visit with a child removed from the home for safety concerns must be allowed to have the planned time with the child even if the parent showed up one-minute before the scheduled visit, and even if the parent showed up drunk, high, in crisis, and any of a number of other conditions.
Although the bill did not receive a hearing and did not make it out of committee before “turn-around” and was not referred to an exempt committee before “turn-around,” the bill appeared on the Senate Judiciary calendar on Friday, March 13, 2015 scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. in Room 346-S.
SB207: CINC; Prohibiting retaliation or discrimination by an employer against a parent for taking time off to attend juvenile and CINC proceedings
This bill would prohibit any adverse employment action as a result of a parent needing to take time off work to attend or participate in either CINC proceedings or juvenile court proceedings for that person’s child.
The bill did not receive a hearing and did not make it out of committee. The Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
SB222: Crimes; leaving a dangerous weapon in a place accessible to children
Would make leaving a dangerous weapon in a place accessible to a child punishable as a Class A nonperson misdemeanor.
The bill did not receive a hearing and did not make it out of committee. The Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
SB297: Impeachment; grounds to impeach Kansas Supreme Court justices
In the waining days of the 2015 Legislative Session, another attempt to intimidate a free and fair judiciary was introduced. This bill attempts to provide additional reasons (than those provided in the State Constitution) to impeach justices of the Kansas Supreme Court including:
- commission of treason,
- commission of bribery
- commission of other indictable criminal offenses,
- commission of a breach of the public trust,
- commission of a breach of judicial ethics,
- failure to perform adequately the duties of office,
- attempting to subvert fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power,
- attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government,
- exhibiting wanton or reckless judicial conduct,
- exhibiting personal misbehavior or misconduct,
- failure to adequately supervise subordinate employees and
- such other actions which in accordance with section 28 of article 2 of the constitution of the state of Kansas may constitute grounds for impeachment
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, the Hutchinson News published an article revealing that the “mystery sponsor” of the bill was Sen. Mitch Holmes (R-St. John). The Kansas Constitution provides that, the governor and all other officers under the Constitution “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The article noted that, “Holmes did not respond to The News, but in an Associated Press story, he explained the Constitution lacked guidelines for impeachment and without guidelines, the Legislature would be unlikely to exercise its power to impeach.”
The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but because of its late introduction will not be heard until the 2016 Legislative Session, if at all.
House:
HCR5003, A PROPOSITION to amend the state constitution by adding a provision to article 3 relating to the judiciary
Seeks to extend recall elections to judges — so that judges can be threatened for unpopular decisions and decisions that don’t favor majority viewpoints.
HCR5004, A PROPOSITION to amend the state constitution by revising article 3 relating to the judiciary
Seeks to abolish the Supreme Court nominating Commission, doing away with non-partisan merit selection of judges and providing for direct partisan election of supreme court justices and court of appeals judges. The proposal was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, which scheduled HCR5004 and HCR5005 for hearing on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:30 o’clock p.m. in Room 112-N. On February 17, 2015, the Committee voted 13-9 that the resolution be adopted by the full House. Attorneys voting against HCR5004 in Committee were Reps. Finch, Highberger, Carmichael, and Ward. Attorneys voting to change merit selection process and to adopt HCR5004 in Committee were Reps. Kahrs, Davis, Todd, and McPherson.
HCR5005, A PROPOSITION to amend the state constitution by revising article 3 relating to the judiciary
Seeks to abolish the Supreme Court nominating Commission, doing away with nonpartisan merit selection of judges to allow the governor at his own whim to appoint supreme court justices and court of appeals judges, subject only to partisan senate confirmation. The proposal was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, which scheduled HCR5004 and HCR5005 for hearing on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:30 o’clock p.m. in Room 112-N. On February 17, 2015, the Committee voted 13-9 that the resolution be adopted by the full House. Attorneys voting against HCR5004 in Committee were Reps. Finch, Highberger, Carmichael, and Ward. Attorneys voting to change merit selection process and to adopt HCR5004 in Committee were Reps. Kahrs, Davis, Todd, and McPherson.
HCR5006, A PROPOSITION to amend the state constitution by revising article 3 relating to the judiciary.
Seeks to substantially modify the Supreme Court nominating commission so that it is a partisan body rather than the current non-partisan body and to allow the governor to appoint supreme court justices and court of appeals judges, subject to senate confirmation with lifetime appointment, subject to removal only “for cause.”
HCR5009, A PROPOSITION to amend the state constitution by revising article 3 relating to the judiciary.
Seeks to include in the constitution a provision that if 33% of those voting in any retention election vote against retention of a supreme court justice, the justice would not be retained resulting in an open position. Another attack on a free and independent judiciary.
HCR5012: A PROPOSITION to amend the state constitution by revising article 3 relating to the judiciary.
Seeks to abolish the supreme court nominating commission and provide that all supreme court justices are appointed by governor from nominees submitted by House Judiciary committee, then subject to Senate confirmation after selected by the governor. Another attack on a free and independent judiciary.
HCR5013: A PROPOSITION to amend the state constitution by revising article 3 relating to the judiciary.
Seeks to change the composition of the supreme court nominating commission. The proposition would also protect the court of appeals by providing for its existence and composition in the state constitution. The Resolution was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration, and it was set for hearing Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 112-N.
HB2005: Information Technology Services; separate agency status for budgetary purposes Judiciary; appropriations and budget FY16–FY17, judicial surcharge, court fees, docket fees and court costs; dispositive motions (PASSED HOUSE 118-0)(See HB2111) (AMENDED BILL PASSED SENATE 32-8)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(SECOND CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(CCR PASSED HOUSE)(CCR PASSED SENATE)(GOVERNOR SIGNED: JUNE 4, 2015)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015)
As introduced and recommended by the House Committee on Appropriations, this bill would have established the Office of Information Technology Services (OITS) as a separate state agency for budgetary purposes. The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Appropriations. In the House Committee, the Legislative Post Auditor testified neutrally to the bill. No proponents or opponents testified. The Committee recommended that the bill be passed, without amendment. The House passed the bill 118-0 on February 3, 2015.
In the Senate, the bill was assigned to the Committee on Ways and Means. The Senate Committee scheduled hearings on February 11, 2015. The bill radically changed when the Senate Committee gutted the bill, striking the original contents and inserting the provisions of SB236 (Judicial Branch appropriations for FY2016 and FY2017), SB15 (creating a “dispositive motion” filing fee to replace the “summary judgment” filing fee), SB44 (Electronic Filing and Management Fund), and SB51 as earlier amended by Senate Committee and passed by the Senate (eliminating the Judicial Branch surcharge sunset date). The bill passed out of committee for consideration by the full Senate on March 23, 2015.
The Senate Committee of the Whole considered the amended bill on May 5, 2015. Two amendments were proposed on the Senate Floor – both attacks on the judicial branch – were ruled not germane. (The first, by Senator Holmes, sought to define grounds for impeachment of a justice of the supreme court, including a “failure to properly supervise, administer or discipline judicial personnel” and “attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government.” The second, bySenator Fitzgerald, sought to include a prohibition on the use of a supreme court justice’s property by providing that, “No justice of the supreme court may allow an event to take place at such justice’s place of residence, the purpose of which is to solicit a contribution or contributions for any candidate or such candidate’s campaign committee for any state or local office. The provisions of this section shall not prohibit a justice of the supreme court from holding such an event for the purpose of soliciting a contribution for such justice’s own retention election.” The latter proposal was spurred not by a justice’s actions, but because the spouse of a justice held a fund raising event at the couple’s shared marital residence — an event in which the justice did not participate and at which the justice did not attend.) The bill eventually passed out of the Senate Committee of the Whole to the Senate Floor, where it was approved 32 – 8.
The House nonconcurred in the Senate amendments and a Conference Committee was appointed.
On May 30, 2015, the Conference Committee agreed to accept all Senate amendments to the bill, and make further amendments to the budget included in the bill. But when the CCR was presented to the Senate, it failed to adopt the Conference Committee Report on an 18 – 21 vote. The next day, however, a Substitute Motion to Not Adopt the CCR and appoint a new conference committee also failed 11 – 28 leading to second vote to adopt the Conference Committee Report, which this time passed 25 – 14. The CCR was the considered by the House, which approved the Conference Committee Report 88 – 26, sending it to the governor for signature. But the passage was not without dissent; even some of those who voted in favor of the CCR voiced disapproval of the bill and the ideas behind it. Rep Steven Becker (R-Buhler) said in explaining his vote in favor of the bill:
“Explanation of Vote on HB 2005 filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
“I vote yes on HB 2005 only in order to keep the courts of the state of Kansas open for business. The attempt to make court funding contingent on the courts’ decision in a specific case is shameful. However, this is the only way to avoid judicial branch furloughs and ensure that Kansans can access their courts to seek justice, protection from abuse, or the resolution of disputes. Our citizens deserve a fair, independent, and adequately funded judiciary without political games and attempts to buy judicial decisions by anyone, including the legislature.”
The governor signed the bill on June 4, 2015 when it was presented to him.
HB2020: Benefits; facilitating the process for military servicemembers’ dependents to receive services under state home and community based services programs (HCBS)
Eases the process to obtain HCBS services for certain military servicemembers’ dependents.
The bill did not receive a hearing and did not make it out of committee. The House did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
HB2024: Crimes; domestic Battery, sentencing
This bill provides that when determining the sentence to be imposed a court “shall consider available information relating to any current or prior protective order issued against [the defendant].” The “protective orders” to which the provision applies are those issued by any state or tribal court consistent with 18 USC 2265 (VAWA), temporary restraining orders issued under the Kansas Family Law Code, and certain orders in other criminal proceedings.
This bill was assigned to the Judiciary Committee, and scheduled for hearing on
Monday, January 26, 2015, 3:30 PM Room 112-NThursday, January 29, 2015.Representatives from the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence (KCASDV) and the Kansas Judicial Council submitted written testimony supporting the bill. A representative of the Office of Judicial Administration offered neutral testimony. On February 19, 2015, the Committee passed out the bill for consideration by the full House amending the bill to replace the phrase “available information” with “information presented to the court.”
On February 26, 2015, with turn-around looming, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Appropriations, an exempt committee.
HB2039: Family Law; Domestic Case Management
This bill seeks to update provisions relating to domestic case management — parent coordination. It clarifies that the power to make orders remains always with the district court — rather than with the domestic case manager. It clarifies the prerequisites for a court to order domestic case management. It also makes various technical changes.
This bill was assigned to the Judiciary Committee, and scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, January 28, 2015, in Room 112-N. Ronald W. Nelson provided testimony supporting the legislation, but suggesting amendments to protect the participants’ due process rights and provide direction to courts using domestic case management. The Committee worked the bill on Monday, February 23, 2015, tabling the bill for the session.
HB2062: Crimes; blackmail and breach of privacy
According to its sponsors, HB2062 seeks to “outlaw revenge porn — the posting of nude photographs or videos of an ex-spouse or significant other on the Internet — in Kansas.” Specifically, the bill would define as blackmail and a criminal breach of privacy, “disseminating or permitting the dissemination of any videotape, film, photograph or image of another identifiable person who is nude or in a state of undress, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person, without the consent of that other person to such dissemination.” HB2062, Section 2(a)(8). The crime would be categorized as a “level 5, person felony.”
“Divorces are nasty,” said Rep. Sydney Carlin, D-Manhattan, who introduced HB2062 to the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday. “A lot of pain and a lot of anger and usually one person comes out a little better in financial settlements than the other and this is threatening. This is harassment.” Wichita Eagle, Two Lawmakers Propose Bill to Outlaw Revenge Porn in Kansas, January 20, 2014. Rep. Stephanie Clayton, (R) Overland Park, is also sponsoring the bill.
The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled for testimony on Thursday, January 29, 2015, in Room 112-N. Sponsors planned on the bill being worked Monday, February 23, 2015 amending the bill to correct concerns about the coverage and constitutionality of some provisions in the bill, but the bill did not make it out of committee.
HB2064: Insurance; authorizing insurance companies to insure against the cost of legal services; prepaid dental plans (PASSED HOUSE 118-0)(AMENDED BILL PASSED SENATE 40-0)(CONFERENCE)(GOVERNOR SIGNED: MAY 7, 2015)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015)
This bill was assigned to the House Committee on Insurance and scheduled for hearing on Monday, January 26, 2015, 3:30 PM in Room 152S. The bill was reported out favorably on January 29, 2015. On February 4, 2015, the House Committee of the Whole recommended passage without amendment. The House passed the bill on February 5, 2015 on a vote of 118–0.
The bill was introduced to the Kansas Senate on the same day and referred to the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance. The Committee set the bill for hearing on Wednesday, March 11, 2015, at 9:30 AM in Room 546-S. On March 18, 2015, the Committee worked the bill, amending the bill adding a provision relating to an exemption from the definition of prepaid service plan and insert provisions relating to nonprofit dental service corporations (HB2065), which the House had passed 123-0 on February 12, 2015 as had been recommended by House Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance.
The Senate Committee of the Whole debated the bill on March 24, 2015, and passed it out of Committee for consideration by the full Senate adding HB2065 to the bill (as recommended by the House Committee on Insurance), which provided an exemption from the definition of prepaid service plan inserting provisions relating to nonprofit dental service corporations. The Senate approved the amended bill Yea: 40-0 on Wednesday, March 25, 2015. That same day (second-house turn-around), the House non concurred in the Senate amendments.
The governor signed the bill May 7, 2015. The bill became effective July 1, 2015.
HB2073: Judiciary; reducing Judicial mandatory retirement age
This is another in a series of attacks on the independent Kansas judiciary. It would reduce from 75 to 70 the mandatory retirement age for Kansas district judges and to 65 for judges sitting on the Kansas appellate courts (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals). The bill was originally referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
On Monday, February 24, 2015, with the ‘turn-around’ deadline looming, the Speaker withdrew the bill from the Committee on Judiciary, referring the bill to the House Committee on Appropriations (a committee exempt from the turn-around deadline).
HB2080: Crimes; unlawful dissemination of consensually taken images, blackmail and breach of privacy.
This bill (along with its companion, HB2062, would outlaw “revenge porn.” This bill would criminalize:
“disseminating or permitting the dissemination of any videotape, photograph, film or image of another person who is 18 or more years of age under or through the clothing being worn by that other person or another person who is 18 or more years of age who is nude or in a state of undress, when the videotape, photograph, film or image was taken with consent of that other person, but that other person did not consent to the dissemination of such videotape, photograph, film or image.”
The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee
, which scheduled a hearing on the bill for Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:30 o’clock p.m. in Room 112-N. The bill did not receive a hearing and did not make it out of committee. The House did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
HB2100: ABLE Act; establishing tax–deferred savings accounts for individuals with disabilities (Senate COW amended into HB2216)
This bill would establish the Kansas ABLE Act – a state counterpart to the federal ABLE Act (Achieving a Better Life Experience). The federal ABLE Act was signed into law by President Obama on December 15, 2014. The federal ABLE act allows people with disabilities to open tax-free savings accounts in which they can save up to $100,000 – avoiding the $2,000 asset limit on asset accumulation above which government benefits are lost. See Christian Science Monitor, “ABLE Act: How one bill offers hope on Congress’s biggest problems.” As described by DisabilityScoop.com:
“The new law will allow people with disabilities to open special accounts where they can save up to $100,000 without risking eligibility for Social Security and other government programs. What’s more, individuals can keep their Medicaid coverage no matter how much money is accrued in an ABLE account.
“Modeled after 529 college savings plans, interest earned on savings will be tax-free. Funds accrued in the accounts can be used to pay for education, health care, transportation, housing and other expenses.”
The Kansas bill was assigned to the House Committee on Children and Seniors. The Committee held a hearing on the bill on Thursday, January 29, 2015, 9:00 AM in Room 218-N and passed it out of committee, as amended, with a favorable recommendation on February 4, 2015. On Monday, February 24, 2015, with the ‘turn-around’ deadline looming, the Speaker withdrew the bill from the Committee on Children and Seniors, referring the bill to the House Committee on Appropriations (a committee exempt from the turn-around deadline). On March 17, 2015, the Speaker withdrew the bill from Appropriations and reassigned it to the Committee on Children and Seniors.
The bill returned as an amendment to HB2216 when the Senate Committee of the Whole replaced the language in HB2216 with HB2100. See HB2216 for continued history.
HB2110: Judiciary; election of chief judge in each judicial district
This bill would provide that all judges of a district (including magistrate judges) would vote for the district chief judge. The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Judiciary, which scheduled hearings for Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N.
The bill did not make it out of committee nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
HB2111: Code of civil procedure; items allowable as costs. (PASSED HOUSE 111-12)(PASSED SENATE 38-1)(SENATE ADOPTED CCR 40-0)(HOUSE ADOPTED CCR 117–5)(GOVERNOR SIGNED: MAY 14, 2015)(EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015)
This bill would tax as “costs” in any action, “Convenience fees and other administrative fees levied for the privilege of paying assessments, fees, costs, fines or forfeitures by credit card or other means, including, but not limited to, fees for electronic filing of documents or pleadings with the court.” The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, February 3, 2015, at 3:30 o’clock p.m. in Room 112-N.
The bill was passed out of committee favorably on February 5, 2015 and recommended for passage by the House Committee of the Whole on February 11, 2015. The House passed the bill on February 12, 2015, Yea: 111 Nay: 12, sending the bill to the Senate.
In the Senate, the bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled hearings for Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S. On March 19, 2015, Senate Judiciary amended the bill to make it effective upon publication in the Kansas Register (rather than on July 1, 2015), and recommended the bill be passed by the full Senate. The Senate Committee of the Whole adopted the Committee amendments and recommended passage. The Senate approved the bill, as amended by Senate Committee, 38–1.
On March 31, 2015, the House non concurred in the Senate amendments to the bill and appointed a conference committee to which the Senate acceded. On April 2, 2015, the Conference Committee issued a report in which the House acceded to the one Senate amendment. The conference committee also agreed to bundle into that amended bill amend the bill to incorporate into the Senate version of the bill the SB59, which will clarify the jurisdiction of district magistrate judges and allow them to hear “uncontested divorce actions” (and contested actions for divorce, separate maintenance, and child custody, with the parties’ consent); SB183, which clarified the process to enforce court collection of debts, SB184, which would remove the possibility of dormancy for judgments for court fees and charges; and HB2112, which would allow the courts to invade county law library funds to pay for improvements at the county courthouse that should instead be paid from the state general fund.
The Senate adopted the CCR on April 2, 2015, 40–0. The House adopted the CCR on April 30, 2015, 117–5. The bill was presented to the governor who signed the bill on May 14, 2015. The bill became effective July 1, 2015. (Enrolled Act)
HB2113: Court-appointed special advocates.
This bill would allow a court to assess against any party to a child in need of care matter a reasonable fee for the services performed by a court-appointed special advocate (CASA). The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee
, which held a hearing on Tuesday, February 03, 2015, at 3:30 o’clock p.m. in Room 112N. The bill did not receive a hearing and did not make it out of committee. The House did not pass the bill before turn-around; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
HB2114: Code of civil procedure; subpoena of nonparty business records. (REFERRED TO JUDICIAL COUNCIL)
This bill would require anyone seeking to obtain a third party’s personal or business records to give notice to that third party as well as all parties to the lawsuit — and allow that third party to copy the records. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled for hearing on
Tuesday, February 3, 2015Thursday, February 5, 2015, at 3:30 p.m. in Room 112-N. Ronald W. Nelson testified in favor of the proposed amendments.On February 18, 2015, the bill was referred to the Kansas Judicial Council for further review and to analyze the concerns expressed about connections between the Kansas Code of Criminal Procedure and the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure.
HB2147: Protection from Abuse Act, Protection from Stalking Act; amendments to establish the “protection from stalking and sexual assault act”
This bill would add as a basis for protection from abuse and stalking orders, “Engaging in any sexual contact or attempted sexual contact with another person without consent or when such person is incapable of giving consent.” The bill would also change the name of the protection from abuse act to “The Protection from Stalking and Sexual Assault Act. As written, the bill has wide-ranging impact and would be ripe for misuse.
The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee scheduled hearings for Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N. Ronald W. Nelson testified against the bill stating:
“The situations covered by this broad language are staggering. The language does not require actual contract; it does not require completion of an act; it does not contain any limiting language on the situations in which it may apply. The language is not limiting; it is expansive. The language is not directed to specific situations, but covers nearly every situation in which sexual contact is sought, but declined – whether in a threatening or non-threatening manner, whether innocent or malicious, whether anything came of it or not.”
The Committee was expected to work the bill on Monday, February 23, 2015, but did not. The bill did not make it out of committee; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
HB2160: Docket fees; electronic filing and management fund. (See HB2111)
This bill provides that the chief justice of the Kansas Supreme Court may transfer any amount of the electronic filing and management fund to the judicial branch docket fee fund during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. The bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, February 4, 2015, at 3:30 o’clock p.m. in Room 112-N. The bill did not make it out of committee; nor was it referred to an exempt committee.
S Sub for Sub HB2170: Schools; limiting seclusion and restraint of students with disabilities; reporting (SUBSTITUTE PASSED HOUSE 122-1)(S Sub PASSED SENATE 38-1)(S Sub PASSED HOUSE 111-1)(GOVERNOR SIGNED: May 27, 2015)(Effective July 1, 2015)
The bill would limit school practices in using seclusion and restrain against students with disabilities. Currently, some school districts lock children in small spaces and use retributive punishments against students with disabilities. The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Children and Seniors. It was scheduled for hearing for Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 9:00 o’clock a.m. in Room 218-N.
Written testimony in favor of the bill was provided at the February 10, 2015 hearing by representatives of the Association of Community Mental Health Centers of Kansas, Autism Society – The Heartland, the Disability Rights Center of Kansas, Easter Seals Capper Foundation, InterHab, the Kansas Association of Centers for Independent Living, the Kansas Council on Developmental Disabilities, the Kansas Mental Health Coalition, the National Alliance on Mental Illness Kansas, Skills to Succeed, and The Arc Douglas County, and several private individuals.
The bill hearing was continued to February 19, 2015, at which time a substitute bill was presented. At the end of the hearing on February 19, 2015, the House Committee recommended the substitute bill to address concerns identified during discussions on the bill. One change included in the substitute bill would be its application to all students; the original bill would have applied only to children with disabilities. The House Committee of the Whole debated the bill on February 25, 2015. The COW made two amendments to the bill. First, it struck from the bill a duplicate prohibition (which was stated a different way in the immediate preceding subparagraph). Second, it included in the bill an independent complaint process and directed that rules and regulations for that process be implemented no later than January 1, 2016. On February 26, 2015, the bill was approved by the full House, as amended, 122-1, with Rep. Charles Smith voting NO. (Rep Sawyer was absent and not voting)
The bill was received and introduced into the Senate on February 26, 2015, and assigned to the Senate Committee on Education. The Committee scheduled hearings on the bill for Wednesday, March 11, 2015, at 1:30 PM in Room 144-S.
On March 19, 2015, the Senate Committee adopted a substitute bill with many of the same provisions as Sub for HB2170. Substantive changes in the Senate’s substitute include classifying all seclusion and restraints as ESI; amending when use of ESI is appropriate; removing provisions specific to use of physical restraint, including use of physical restraint when a student is involved in an altercation; modifying notification and data reporting requirements; adding provisions applicable after the third use of ESI on a student; modifying the Board’s obligation to adopt rules and regulations; establishing the ESI Task Force; and adding a June 30, 2017, sunset. The Senate Substitute bill was recommended for passage.
On March 25, 2015, the Senate passed the Substitute bill on Emergency action 38 Nay: 1.When the Legislature returned for its Veto Session, the House suspended its rules and voted to pass the bill on emergency action Yea: 111 Nay: 1. The bill was presented to the governor on May 22, 2015. The governor signed the bill on May 27, 2015. The bill was effective July 1, 2015.
HB2173: Campaign finance; Supreme court and court of appeals retention elections.
This bill would put into place disclosure and reporting requirements for anyone funding pro-or-con campaigns in judicial retention elections involving Kansas supreme court justices and court of appeals judges. The bill did not receive a hearing and was it referred to an exempt committee.
HB2206: Protection from abuse; amendments, enacting the gun violence restraining order act, criminal distribution of firearms; criminalizing possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer
This bill was introduced by Rep. Barbara Bollier (R-Prairie Village) at the same time a duplicate bill was introduced into the Missouri House of Representatives by Missouri Rep. Stacey Newman. The bill would establish firearms restrictions for people with domestic violence or stalking restraining orders or convictions. In an article in the Kansas City Star, Rep. Newman, a Democrat from Richmond Heights in St. Louis County, said her bill includes language that would allow law enforcement and family members to restrict those considered “in crisis” from gun possession. “The representatives were joined by a small crowd that included representatives from the Hope House and Rose Brooks domestic violence shelters, the League of Women Voters, Grandmothers Against Gun Violence, the Kansas City Health Commission and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.”
The bill did not receive a hearing and was it referred to an exempt committee.
This bill was originally introduced to make several amendments to the Kansas Money Transmitter Act (KMTA) by Senator Kelly in the House Committee on Financial Institutions by Representative Kelly at the request of the Office of the State Bank Commissioner (OSBC), citing rapid changes of technology and the increasing amount of money transmission being conducted electronically and through the internet as reasons for regular updates to the KMTA. The House Committee made some modifications to the bill and passed it on to the full House, where it passed 109-12.In the Senate, the bill was amended by the Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance inserted provisions of HB2258 relating to the KMBA (as recommended by House Committee) and HB2352 relating to the Banking Code definition of “remote service unit” (as recommended by House Committee).The Senate Committee of the Whole inserted into the already amended bill HB2100 (as amended by House Committee on Children and Seniors), which would establish the Kansas ABLE Savings Program. The full Senate passed the bill as further amended 40-0.
On March 30, 2015, the House non concurred in the Senate amendments, appointing a conference committee. On April 1, 2015, the House acceded to the Senate amendments in conference, passing the bill, as amended by the Senate, Yea: 116 Nay: 4. The bill was presented to the governor on April 10, 2015.
The bill was signed into law by the governor on April 15, 2015. The bill is effective July 1, 2015. (Enrolled Act)
Borrowing from a horrible Oklahoma law passed in 2014, this bill would allow “A parent or legal custodian of a child may . . . to delegate to another person known as the attorney in fact, for a period not to exceed one year, the powers regarding the care and custody of the child, except the power to consent to marriage or adoption of the child, the performance or inducement of an abortion on or for the child, or the termination of parental rights to the child.” The same bill was introduced into the Kansas Senate as SB148.The bill was referred to the House Committee on Health and Human Services, which set it for hearing on Thursday, February 12, 2015, 1:30 p.m. Room 546-S.The House Committee amended the bill to require an attorney-in-fact parent to be a mandated reporter of abuse or neglect pursuant to KSA 2014 Supp. 38-2223. The House Committee also amended the bill to require an attorney-in- fact parent to undergo a similar background check required of a potential foster parent. DCF would be required to verify in writing that DCF did conduct the background check on the attorney-in-fact parent and found no reason to object to the execution of the power of attorney. The background check would not be required if the attorney-in-fact parent is a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or adult sibling of the child. The House Committee further amended the bill to change the name of the Act from Safe Families Act to Supporting Families Act, deleted the attorney-in-fact form provided in the bill and required the Kansas Judicial Council to create a power of attorney form, and inserted “DCF” and deleted “a child protective investigator” as it relates to providing information about the Supporting Families Act in certain circumstances. With this amendment, on February 25, 2015, the Committee recommended passing the bill.The bill was not considered before first-house turn-around and was stricken from the Calendar under Rule 1507. However, the original Senate version of the same bill, without House Committee amendments, was amended into SB 159 on the floor of the Kansas Senate by Sen. Pilcher-Cook. For further history on SB 159, see the comments for that bill.
This bill would require that facilities conducting any gaming or lottery cross-check the names of any winners with the names of those owing child support. The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Children and Seniors, which scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, February 24, 2015, at 9:00 o’clock a.m. in Room 218-N. The bill did not make it out of committee before the turn around deadline.
This bill would seek to register “contact points” for children and then criminalize anyone who sends to that “contact point” any “communication” that:(1) Has the primary purpose of advertising or promoting a product or service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing; or(2) contains or has the primary purpose of advertising or promoting material that is harmful to minors.The bill seems to be a 1960’s style attack on “pornographers.” The bill appears specifically addressed to materials deemed “harmful to minors,” which the bill defines as:“that quality of any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse when the material or performance, taken as a whole, or that portion of the material that was actually exposed to the view of minors, has the following characteristics: (A) The average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors; (B) the average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
(C) a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors. As used in this subsection, “material” means any text, print, picture, figure, image, description, film or record.”The bill was scheduled for hearing on Monday, February 23, 2015, at 3:30 p.m. in Room 112-N. The bill did not make it out of committee after hearing it was not referred to an exempt committee.
This bill is a reaction to the announcement by the governor that he was rescinding an executive order issued by former Governor Kathleen Sebelius prohibiting adverse job actions against state employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This bill was introduced after nation-wide coverage — including on The Daily Show — of the governor’s action. The bill did not receive a hearing and was not referred to an exempt committee.
Would add the phrase, “whether or not a presumed father and child relationship exists” to K.S.A. 23-2209(a)(2), which allows a child to bring an action to determine that child’s parentage for three-years after the child reaches the age of majority (18 years) — it’s unclear why the addition is required; it adds nothing to the statute’s grammatical structure (other than words). The phrase is superfluous.
The bill did not receive a hearing and was not referred to an exempt committee.
This bill would repeal the statutory requirement that at least one judge reside in each Kansas county. The Kansas Supreme Court sought this change for years so that it would have the flexibility to shift judicial positions to where they were needed. The bill did not receive a hearing and was not referred to an exempt committee.
As originally introduced, HB2365 dealt with appropriations for the Kansas Judiciary for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2016, and June 30, 2017. The bill was submitted by the governor who instead of ‘passing through’ the judiciary’s requested budget as is custom-and-practice, cut 10% off-the-top. The bill was submitted to the Appropriations Committee, which held hearings on Monday, March 16, 2015, 9:00 AM in Room 112-N.The Committee reported the bill out of committee on May 5, 2015, during the Legislature’s ‘Veto Session,’ to present a House position in negotiations with the already passed Senate-passed draconian version of judicial appropriations. As amended, HB2365 would appropriate $131.2 million to the courts, including $101.9M from the State General Fund in FY 2016, and $138.5M, including $105.7M from the State General Fund, in FY 2017, all from the State General Fund, for Judicial Branch operations. The bill also would require the Judicial Branch to report to the House Appropriations and Senate Ways and Means Committees prior to the 2016 Legislative Session on the feasibility and costs of the Washburn University School of Law Library assuming the duties of the Kansas Supreme Court Law Library. Additionally, the bill would create or amend law related to docket fees, dispositive motion filing fees, and the Electronic Filing and Management Fund. The House Committee also amended the bill to restore the sunset date and extension (as the bill was introduced) and to add the provisions of SB44 regarding the Electronic Filing and Management Fund. According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of the Budget on SB51, as introduced, the Office of Judicial Administration indicates its budget would be reduced by $9.5 million each fiscal year if the bill is not enacted.The bill was debated by the House Committee of the Whole on May 7, 2015, rejecting a floor amendment that would have required courts to immediately grant costs to any party dismissed from an action. On Emergency Final Action, the House passed the bill 108–10.
This bill would allow the filing of a petition to obtain a “gun violence restraining order.” The order would prohibit the restrained person from purchasing or possessing a firearm. The order could be obtained by any family member, spouse, intimate partner, or another person with a close relationship to the party sought to be restrained because that person “poses a significant risk of personal injury to self or others by possessing a firearm.” See also HB2206. The bill did not receive a hearing and was not referred to an exempt committee.