Legislative Issues – 2016

The 2016 Kansas Legislature convened Monday, January 11, 2016. The 2016 session runs for 90 days until approximately mid-April. The 2016 Legislative Session is the second-session of the biennial legislature, so any bills introduced but not killed in the 2015 legislative session “carry over” and may be considered in 2016.

The last day of the session for individual bill introductions is February 10, 2016 (the last day for individuals to request the Revisor’s office for bill drafts is February 1). Committee bill introductions must be made on or before February 12, 2016.

All bills must pass the bill’s “house of origin” on or before February 26, 2016 (with some exceptions) or they are “dead” for the session. All bills must pass the opposite house from origin on or before March 23, 2016 (second-house turn-around). All Bills must be considered for final action (other than bills from “exempt” committees) before “first adjournment,” which though scheduled for April 1, 2016, occurred early on Thursday, March 24, 2016, when both houses passed a quickly drafted “school-equity-finance” bill.” The Legislature returns for a “Veto Session” scheduled to begin Wednesday, April 27, 2015. It ended late-night on Sunday, May 1, 2016, after an exhausting, marathon “veto” session. The “Veto Session” normally lasts only a few days and did so in 2016; but as it has for the last few years, the Legislature considered significant legislation rather than dealing only with vetoes from the governor (of which it didn’t consider any during the veto session). The Legislature returned on June 1, 2016 for adjournment sine die. 

The Legislature convened the 2016 Special Session on June 23, 2016, at 8:00 a.m. to respond to the Kansas Supreme Court’s most recent opinion in Gannon v. State, issued May 27, 2016 (to consider adequately funding of the state’s schools, which the Legislature has failed to properly fund for more than 20 years). The 2016 Special Session was called pursuant to a proclamation issued by Governor Sam Brownback on June 8, 2016. The 2016 Special Session was adjourned sine die on June 24, 2016.

The following family law and related bills and concurrent resolutions were considered by the 2016 Kansas Legislature Regular and Special Sessions:

SPECIAL SESSION – 2016

Senate:

SS SCR 1602Constitutional amendment prohibiting the closure of schools when statute held unconstitutional.

Introduced on the first day of the 2016 Special Session, SCR 1602 is an attempt by the Kansas Legislature’s reactionary majority to get out of doing what the Kansas Constitution requires: equitably fund the Kansas public schools. This proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the courts from issuing “any order, the effect of which is to close schools or otherwise deny the provision of public education that is required by [the Kansas Constitution]” and prohibits the Legislature from taking any action to close the schools in reaction to a Supreme Court ruling. The proposed amendment is nonsense. It would render ineffective any constitutional provision requiring that the Legislature fund the schools because no one would be able to do anything about the Legislature’s unrepentant refusal to do what it is constitutionally required to do.

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the proposed amendment the first special session day, passing it out to the Senate Floor with a favorable recommendation, only changing when the proposed amendment would be voted upon (November 2016, rather than August 2016).

SS SCR 1603: Constitutional amendment prohibiting action by any court or the legislature that would deny public education to the students of this state.

Introduced on the first day of the 2016 Special Session, SCR 1603 is another attempt by the Kansas Legislature’s reactionary majority to get out of doing what the Kansas Constitution requires: equitably fund the Kansas public schools. This proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the courts from issuing “any order, the effect of which is to close schools or otherwise deny the provision of public education that is required by [the Kansas Constitution]” and prohibits the Legislature from taking any action to close the schools in reaction to a Supreme Court ruling. The proposed amendment is nonsense. It would render ineffective any constitutional provision requiring that the Legislature fund the schools because no one would be able to do anything about the Legislature’s unrepentant refusal to do what it is constitutionally required to do.

House:

SS HCR5001: Constitutional amendment; establishing requirements for the finance of public elementary and secondary schools and defining limiting the power of the courts to fashion legal remedies for violations of article 6.

Introduced on the first day of the special session, this proposed constitutional amendment would change the Kansas constitution’s mandate that public schools be “suitably” funded to “an amount that is 45% of the preceding fiscal  year’s total state revenue for the ensuing fiscal year.” (In 2016, the public schools’ budget was expected to exceed 50% of the State revenue, mainly because of disastrously falling revenues resulting from the 2012 income tax changes planned on eventually leading to zero state income taxes.) With continually falling revenues, this proposal would be kill the public schools. It is another in a long-line of proposals introduced into the Kansas Legislature to enable legislators to ignore their responsibility to properly fund the public schools and to change the playing field that has lead the Kansas courts repeatedly to find that the Legislature failed in its constitutional duty.

 

SS HB2002: Courts: Establishing a superior court and changing appellate court jurisdiction

Continuing in the same vein of the regular session, this bill was introduced on the first day of the special session to completely change the structure of the Kansas court system. The bill would create a “superior court” that “shall be a part of the court of justice in which the  judicial power of the state is vested by section 1 of article 3 of the  constitution of the state of Kansas and shall be subject to the general administrative authority of the supreme court.” The “Superior Court” would consist of seven judges chosen by the governor with confirmation by the state Senate. The “Superior Court” would have the power to receive civil, criminal, and administrative appeals, and would have the power to stay any proceedings of a lower court upon request. If any case “within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court” was “erroneously appealed” to the Kansas Supreme Court, the bill would require the Supreme Court to transfer the case to the Superior Court for hearing and decision.

The bill is an obvious (and malevolent) attempt to strip the Kansas Supreme Court of its entire caseload, leaving all appeals instead to a politically chosen appeals court.

REGULAR SESSION – 2016

Senate:

SB19: Administrative Law; electronic service of orders and notices under the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act and the Kansas Judicial Review Act (PASSED SENATE 40-0)(PASSED HOUSE AMENDED 122–0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(SENATE CONCURRED IN HOUSE AMENDMENTS 40-0)(GOVERNOR SIGNED May 9, 2016) – EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2016

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.

On January 11, 2016, at the beginning of the 2016 Legislative Session, however, the bill was withdrawn from the Calendar and re-referred to Senate Committee on Judiciary. The Judiciary Committee again heard the bill on January 20, 2016, 10:30 AM Room 346-S, passing the bill out of committee the next day updating only the year of application. The bill was put on the Calendar for consideration by the Committee of the Whole and debated on February 3, 2016. The Committee of the Whole recommended passage and the Senate voted  Yea: 40 Nay: 0 to pass the bill as amended on Emergency Final Action the same day.

The bill was introduced to the House on February 4, 2016, and was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for hearings. The Committee scheduled hearings on the bill for Monday, March 14, 2016 at 330p in Room 112-N. At the hearing, representatives of the Judicial Council and the Office of Administrative Hearings testified in support of the bill. Representatives of the Department for Children and Families, Department for Aging and Disability Services, and Department of Agriculture submitted written testimony supporting the bill. The House Committee adopted an amendment changing the term “sending” to “transmitting.” On March 17, 2016, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that the House pass the bill with those further amendments.

The full House passed the slightly amended bill March 23, 2016 Yea: 122 Nay: 1. The Senate non-concurred in the House amendments that same day, appointing a Conference Committee. In Conference, the Senate conferees agreed with the amendments made by the House. On April 29, 2016, the Senate suspended Joint Rule 4(k) to allow consideration of the bill. The Senate voted unanimously to pass the bill as amended by the House (Yea: 40 Nay: 0).

The bill was enrolled and presented to Governor on Tuesday, May 03, 2016. The Governor signed the bill on May 9, 2016. The bill is effective July 1, 2016.

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.

SB57: Kansas power of attorney act (PASSED SENATE 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.

H Sub SB58: Open Records; creating exemptions to disclosure Administrative; Kansas judicial review act; venue (PASSED SENATE 39-1)(See SB319 CCR)

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. But the bill did not come out of committee during the 2015 Session and was not assigned to an exempt committee.

At the beginning of the 2016 Legislative Session, however, the bill popped up again for hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, January 27, 2016, 3:30 PM Room 112-N. The House Committee offered a substitute bill that would change the bill from dealing with the Kansas Judicial Review Act to one that provides for exceptions to the Kansas Open Meetings Act.

The bill was stricken from the Calendar on March 24, 2016, the last day of the 2016 regular session, but the contents were passed as part of the Conference Committee Report to SB319

H Sub for SB59: Judiciary; Clarifying district magistrate judge jurisdiction (PASSED SENATE 2015 40-0)(See 2015HB2111Education; supplemental general state aid and capital outlay state aid.

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. The bill was set for hearing Wednesday, March 18, 2015, at 3:30 PM in Room 112N. On March 23, 2015, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that the Senate version of the bill be further amended by striking “wildlife and parks”; in line 11, after “violations” by inserting “of the wildlife, parks and tourism laws of this state or rules and regulations adopted thereunder.” The bill was placed on Calendar, but not debated during the 2015 Legislative Session.

On January 11, 2016, the bill was withdrawn from Calendar and referred to Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations took no action until March 24, 2016, when it recommended that a Substitute Bill on educational funding instead of using this bill as a judicial funding vehicle. The bill ended up not being considered on the floor, with the bodies instead using H Sub SB255 as the vehicle for judicial appropriations and funding.

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. Although not considered during the 2015 Session, the bill was held on the Calendar into the 2016 Legislative Session. But on February 18, 2016, the Senate adopted a Motion to strike the bill from the Calendar.

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.

H Sub SB128: Open records; creating exception to Kansas Open Records Act  Courts; increasing the number of district court judge nominees sent to the governor by district judicial nominating commissions (PASSED SENATE 40-0)(SUBSTITUTE PASSED HOUSE 128–14)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(SECOND CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(HOUSE REJECTED 2ND CCR 56-57)(HOUSE RECONSIDERED)(THIRD CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(HOUSE ADOPTED 3RD CCR 72-50)(SENATE ADOPTED 3RD CCR 35-3)(Governor signed May 16, 2016) – EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2016

The bill was introduced on February 2, 2015 by the Senate Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice at the request of Senator Smith. The bill was assigned to the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice, which set a hearing for Thursday, February 12, 2015, 9:30 AM in Room 118-N. As introduced, this bill would expand a records disclosure exception in the Kansas Open Records Act. Currently, searchable records on a public website which identify the home address or home ownership of certain judges and attorneys are not required to be disclosed by a public agency. Judges and attorneys who are covered by this exemption must file a request to have their identifying information restricted from public access on the website. The bill would expand the list of judges and attorneys who may request restriction of their identifying information to include municipal judges, city attorneys, and assistant city attorneys. The Senate Committee amended the bill to add special assistant city attorneys, special assistant United States attorneys, special assistant attorneys general, special assistant county attorneys, and special assistant district attorneys to the records exception. As amended, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee of the Whole, which recommended passage on February 26, 2015. The Senate passed the bill  Yea: 40 Nay: 0 on that same day by Emergency Final Action.

The bill was introduced in the House March 4, 2015 and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, which set hearings on the bill for Monday, March 16, 2015, 3:30 PM in Room 112N. The bill did not make it out of committee before the end of the 2015 Legislative Session. On February 18, 2016, however, the Judiciary Committee worked the bill, substituting a new language from other anti-court bills for the original SB128. The substitute bill changed the nature and tenor of the previous bill. The amendments include anti-court language, including amendments increasing the number of judge candidates submitted to the governor by any merit selection nominating commission from 3 to 5 in attempt to give the governor his choice of candidates instead of those best qualified. The Committee reported the substitute bill out favorably on February 19, 2016.

On March 8, 2016, the bill was debated by the House Committee of the Whole. Rep. Carmichael (D-Wichita) offered an amendment to the substitute bill, requiring that, “All proceedings of the [nominating] commission relating to accepting nominations, conducting interviews and submitting the names of nominees to the governor shall be open to the public in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the open meetings act” allowing closed or executive sessions, “only for the purpose of discussing sensitive financial information contained within the personal financial records or official background check of a candidate for judicial nomination.” The amendment passed the House COW on voice vote. On Final Action March 9, 2016, the House passed the amended substitute bill Yea: 108 Nay: 14, with only the following representatives defending non-political judicial selection:

AlkaliCurtisFrownfelterHendersonHighbergerHoustonKuetherOusleyRuizTietzeVictorsWardWinn,Wolfe Moore, (CarlinEdmondsSuellentrop absent and not voting).

Having passed the House in different form than was passed by the Senate, the bill was returned to the Senate for consideration. The Senate nonconcurred in the House substitute, and a Conference Committee was appointed.

On April 28, 2016, the Conference Committee reported that the members could not agree on a bill after conferees raised questions about its constitutionality and violations of separation of powers. A second conference committee was appointed. On April 29, 2016, the second conference committee issued its report.

The second Conference Committee agreed to the House amendments to H Sub for SB128, and agreed to add the contents of Sub for SB22 as recommended by Senate Committee on Judiciary, concerning municipal courts; and SB197 as amended by Senate Committee of the Whole, concerning the filling of judicial vacancies. The portion of Sub for SB22 concerning municipal court docket fees, and the Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Fund, which were originally proposed in HB2553 were not included in this conference committee report, but were included in the conference committee report for HB2696. The second Conference Committee also reconciled amendments made to H Sub for SB128 by the House Committee of the Whole with amendments made to SB197 by the Senate Committee of the Whole.

This second CCR would have done a number of bad things to the Kansas courts merit system, including:

  1. The bill would require applicants for admission to practice law to provide the following information required of persons applying to register to vote: (a) name, (b) place of residence, (c) date of birth, (d) sex, and (e) the last four digits of the person’s social security number or the person’s full driver’s license or nondriver’s license identification card number.
  2. A pending applicant would be required to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court (Clerk) in writing of any change in name or address within ten days of such change.
  3. To be eligible to make nominations or receive and cast ballots for the chairperson or members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, attorneys would be required to be licensed and residing in Kansas (and, for Commission members, the appropriate congressional district) on or before the February 15 prior to the selection of such positions. The same requirement would apply with regard to elections of lawyer members of district judicial nominating commissions, except the relevant date would be November 15.
  4. On or before the February 20 preceding the selection of the chairperson or members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, the Supreme Court Clerk would be required to transmit a certified copy of the roster of Kansas licensed attorneys to the Secretary of State, containing the voter information set forth above for those residing in Kansas (or within the relevant congressional district for a member election) as of February 15, in a format prescribed by the Secretary of State, who would then append the unique voter identification number for each person listed on the roster having such a number. The same procedure would be required on or before the November 20 preceding the election of a lawyer member of a district judicial nominating commission, with the same voter information required for each person residing within the judicial district as of November 15.
  5. The names, residential addresses, dates of birth, unique voter identification numbers, and dates of licensure to practice law in Kansas of all persons on such certified rosters would be disclosed upon proper request to the Clerk or to the Secretary of State pursuant to Kansas Open Records Act (KORA).
  6. The Kansas Supreme Court Clerk would be required to use the certified list of eligible attorney voters provided by the Secretary of State for any election of chairperson or member of the Supreme Court nominating commission.
  7. Within 14 days after selection of Supreme Court nominating commission members is certified, the Clerk would be required to create a list containing the position and year of the selection and the names and residential addresses of all persons who returned a ballot with a signed certificate. The Clerk would be required to transmit a certified copy of this list to the Secretary of State, in a format prescribed by the Secretary of State. The certificates would be subject to a KORA request made to the Clerk, and the lists would be subject to a KORA request made to the Clerk or the Secretary of State.
  8. The bill would deem the Supreme Court Nominating Commission and district judicial nominating commissions to be public bodies subject to KOMA.
  9. The Supreme Court Nominating Commission and district judicial nominating commissions would be prohibited from recessing for any closed or executive meeting except for the purpose of discussing sensitive financial information contained within the personal financial records or official background check of a judicial nomination candidate.
  10. The bill would give the Governor – instead of the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court – the power to fill a vacancy in the office of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission chairperson or of any of the lawyer members from the congressional districts.
  11. The bill would amend the statute governing the appointment of judges of the Court of Appeals to require the Governor (or the Chief Justice, if making an appointment because the Governor failed to make an appointment) to make each applicant’s name and city of residence available to the public once applications are no longer accepted, but not less than 10 days before making the appointment.
  12. Finally, the bill would require the Supreme Court Nominating Commission to make nominations of three persons to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court and certify the names of the nominees to the Governor. Further, the bill would change the number of nominees a district judicial nominating commission would be required to nominate for each vacancy from two or three to three, four, or five.

When presented to the House for approval, the bill did not receive the necessary 63 votes, instead being voted down Yea: 56 Nay: 57.

The Yea votes (those voting to damage Kansas courts and open the voting process to improper separation of powers problems – especially by placing the voting registers under the control of Secretary of State Kobach) were:

BarkerBartonBoldraBradfordB. CarpenterW. CarpenterClaeysCorbetDeGraafDoveEsauEstes,GarberGonzalezGrosserodeHawkinsHedkeHighlandHildabrandHoffmanHouserHuebertHutchins,HuttonJohnsonD. JonesK. JonesKahrsKiegerlKleebLunnMacheersMasonMastMcPhersonMerrick,O’BrienOstermanR. PowellProehlRahjesReadRhoadesRubinRyckmanRyckman Sr.ScapaSchwartz,SeiwertC. SmithSuellentropSuttonThimeschVickreyWeberWhitmer

Those voting NO were:

AlfordAnthimidesBallardBeckerBillingerBollierBurroughsCampbellCarlinCarmichaelClarkClayton,ConcannonCurtisDierksDollEdmondsFinchFinneyFrancisFrownfelterGallagherHelgersonHenderson,HenryHibbardHighbergerHillHinemanHoustonJenningsKellyKuetherLewisLuskLuskerMoxley,OusleyF. PattonPaulsPhillipsRookerSawyerSchroederScottSloanS. SwansonThompsonTietzeTodd,TrimmerWardWaymasterWhippleWilsonWinnWolfe Moore

Absent and not voting were:

AlcalaBruchmanE. DavisEwyGoicoHemsleyKelleyPeckRuizSchwabVictorsK. Williams

Later than night, Rep. Janice Pauls made a motion to reconsider the bills rejection. The motion to reconsider was adopted and a third conference committee was appointed.

The third conference committee left all of the bad parts of the second conference committee report intact with one exception: allowing the Governor, rather than the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court, to fill a vacancy of the lawyer members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission.

As modified, the House voted Yea: 72 Nay: 50 to adopt this horrible bill. Those voting in favor of the bill were:

AlfordAnthimidesBarkerBartonBradfordBruchmanB. CarpenterW. CarpenterClaeysCorbetE. Davis,DeGraafDoveEsauEstesFrancisGarberGonzalezGrosserodeHawkinsHedkeHemsleyHighland,HildabrandHoffmanHouserHuebertHutchinsHuttonJenningsJohnsonD. JonesK. JonesKahrsKelley,KellyKiegerlKleebLunnMacheersMasonMastMcPhersonMerrickO’BrienOstermanF. PattonPauls,PeckR. PowellProehlRahjesReadRhoadesRubinRyckmanRyckman Sr.ScapaSchwabSchwartz,SeiwertC. SmithSuellentropSuttonThimeschThompsonToddVickreyWaymasterWeberWhitmerK. Williams,

Those voting against the bill were:

AlcalaBallardBeckerBillingerBoldraBollierBurroughsCampbellCarlinCarmichaelClarkClayton,ConcannonCurtisDierksDollFinchFinneyFrownfelterGallagherHelgersonHendersonHenryHibbard,HighbergerHillHinemanHoustonKuetherLewisLuskLuskerMoxleyOusleyPhillipsRookerRuizSawyer,SchroederScottSloanS. SwansonTietzeTrimmerVictorsWardWhippleWilsonWinnWolfe Moore,

Representatives EdmondsEwy, and Goidco were absent and did not vote.

As adopted, the bill passed over to the Senate, which easily adopted this draconian bill Yea: 35 Nay: 3 (with Senators HawkPettey, and V. Schmidt voting against it)(Abrams and Francisco not voting).

The bill was enrolled and presented to Governor on Monday, May 09, 2016. The Governor signed this awful bill on May 16, 2016, making the bill effective July 1, 2016.

 

SB129: Abuse and neglect; reports concerning children and certain adults (See SB408)

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. Although the bill did not make it out of committee under this bill number, it was incorporated into another bill (see SB408)

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 (See SB418 CCR)

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 LongbineSchmidt 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). The bundle did not make it past deadline.

But when the Judiciary Conference Committees met at the end of the 2016 Legislative Session, the bill was resurrected and was included in the Bundle that became a “mega-family law” bill bundle in SB418 including numerous bad provisions. (See SB418)

SB158: Children; establishing the CARE family program for foster care. (See SB410)

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. But during the 2016 Legislative Session an identical bill (SB410) was introduced, which ended up passing the Senate on February 22, 2016.

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)(Stricken under Rule 1507)(But see SB418)

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-GoudeauHaleyHensley, and Holland voting NO. (Senators FranciscoHawkMcGinnO’DonnellPettey, 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). But the bill did not go any further.

Following the 2015 Session, Senator King requested the Judicial Council study the language of the Safe Families Act contained in SB159. In December 2015, the Judicial Council submitted a report on its study of the bill, including proposed legislation the Judicial Council recommended be used if the Legislature decided to proceed with a program like Safe Families.

Following a staff briefing on the Judicial Council proposed legislation, on February 16, 2016, the 2016 House Committee on Judiciary recommended a substitute bill containing the Judicial Council language, modified with additional language regarding background checks, the consent required to execute a power of attorney, and the impact of the power of attorney on the rights of non-delegating parents or parental or legal authority limited by a court order.

The bill was stricken from the Calendar on March 24, 2016, the last day of the 2016 regular session.

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.

 

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. (PASSED SENATE 35-4)(See SB128 Third CCR)

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 ArpkeHaleyHolland, 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. The bill ended up being considered for inclusion in other bills attacking the courts by conference committees.

At the end of the 2016 Legislative Session, this bill along with other anti-court measures was included in a massive anti-court bill that passed the Legislature after various legislative maneuvers as SB128)

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 2016 turn-around and it was not referred to an exempt committee.

SB222: Crimes;  leaving a dangerous weapon in a place accessible to children

This bill would make leaving a dangerous weapon in a place accessible to a child punishable as a Class A nonperson misdemeanor. The bill was introduced on February 12, 2015, and assigned to the Senate Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice.

The bill was set for hearing on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, 9:30 AM Room 118-N, but did not make it out of committee.

H Sub SB255: Cigarettes and tobacco products; Master Settlement Agreement (PASSED SENATE 40–0) Courts; appropriations (Substitute PASSED HOUSE 122–0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(H SUB PASSED SENATE 40-0)(GOVERNOR SIGNED, May 10, 2016) – EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2016

As originally introduced in the Senate in February 2015, this bill would have amended various statutes governing requirements for sale of cigarettes related to the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) and escrow funds for nonparticipating tobacco product manufacturers. It was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which first scheduled a hearing on March 17 and 18, 2015. The Judiciary Committee recommended passage of the bill (as introduced) on March 19, 2015. When considered by the Senate Committee of the Whole, two amendments were made: one by Sen King made minor amendments to the bill relating to tribal lands; the second by Sen Melcher provided for smoking in “properly ventilated” areas of hospitals. As amended, the bill passed the Senate Yea: 40 Nay: 0.

The bill was introduced into the Kansas House on May 6, 2015 and was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Without notice or hearing, the House Judiciary Committee on March 22, 2016, recommended a Substitute bill for the one passed by the Kansas Senate (The original bill provisions, including the Senate Committee of the Whole amendments, were enacted by the 2015 Legislature in Senate Sub. for HB 2124). As described by the supplemental note, the substitute bill (containing language modified from HB2705) would create new law and amend, revive and amend, or repeal various statutes related to Kansas court docket fees. Among other things, it would create the Electronic Filing and Management Fund, and all expenditures from this fund would be for the purposes of creating, implementing, and managing an electronic filing and centralized case management system for the state court system. A statute regarding the remitting of moneys by the Clerk of the Supreme Court would be revived and amended to redirect remittances currently made to the State General Fund to the Judicial Branch Docket Fee Fund instead.

In the hearing before the House Committee on Judiciary on HB2705, Sen King testified that the Legislature needed to address the “uncertainty of the status of docket fee statutes” (there was none) in light of the Kansas Supreme Court’s Solomon decision and the operation of the nonseverability clause. More to the point, this bill was one of the means of attack on the Kansas courts that occurred frequently during the 2016 Session. The modified language approved by the House Committee removed language from the original HB2705 that would have created new law stating the Supreme Court shall determine the amount of any docket fees to be charged and collected by the court system and may prescribe additional fees and costs to be charged, which shall be reasonable and uniform throughout the state. Language effectuating this change in docket fee determination throughout other statutes also was removed. According to the assistant revisor, the modified language was crafted to restore the docket fee provisions of HB2338 that were not at issue in Solomon but whose status was in question due to the operation of the nonseverability clause. As amended, the House unanimously approved the substitute bill on March 21, 2016  Yea: 122 Nay: 0.

That same day, the Senate nonconcurred in the House substitute, and both houses appointed Conference Committee members to work out a judicial budget. These bills were considered by the judiciary conference committee with other court-related bills (including bills attacking court independence).

On May 1, 2016, after the House and Senate passed the 3rd CCR on SB128 amending various statutes to attack the Kansas courts and lawyers, the Senate accepted the House amendments to the judicial budget Yea: 40 Nay: 0.

The bill was enrolled and presented to Governor on Monday, May 09, 2016. The Governor signed the bill the next day, May 10, 2016, making the bill effective July 1, 2016.

SB297: Impeachment; grounds to impeach Kansas Supreme Court justices (See SB439 and SB440)

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. In the 2016 Legislative session, the bill was again introduced and then inserted into other legislation continuing the legislative leadership attacks on the independence of Kansas courts. The Senate passed a bill including these provisions, which was then considered by conference committee.

SB315: Limiting number of foster children in a home

This bill would limit the number of children that could live in a home licensed as a foster care home to “no more than six children in total within the home, including the applicant’s or licensee’s own biological or adopted children under 16 years of age, or more than four children in foster care.”

The bill was pre-filed before the 2016 Session and assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judiciary scheduled the bill for hearing at 3:30 pm on Thursday, February 11, 2016 in Room 346-S.

SB320: Repeal ‘Non-Severability’ Clause in Kansas Judicial Funding, Providing for Severability of Provisions (See HB2449)

This bill (and its companion HB2449) seek to retroactively repeal a provision included in the 2014 and 2015 Kansas Judicial Funding bills that provided that if any part or portion of the bill was found unconstitutional, the entire bill would be invalid. This bill was made necessary when the Kansas Supreme Court found unconstitutional for violation of the doctrine of separation of powers a provision in the bill providing for selection of chief judges in each judicial district by the sitting judges in that district, rather than by appointment of the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court as provided by Kansas Supreme Court administrative rules. Solomon v State of Kansas 

The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled a hearing on the bill for Thursday, January 14, 2016 in Room 346-S. The Committee recommended the bill for passage to be placed on the Consent Calendar. On January 19, 2016, the bill was removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on General Orders. But instead of working this bill, the Senate and House used HB 2449 as the vehicle to repeal the unconstitutional statute.

SB325: Allowing prosecutor access to child in need of care records (Passed Senate 40-0)(Amended Passed House 120–0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(See SB418 CCR)

This bill would allow prosecutor access to child in need of care records. The bill was assigned to the Senate Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee, which held hearings on the bill. The bill will come up for final Committee consideration on Monday, February 8, 2016. The Committee recommended the bill for passage and placement on the Consent Calendar on February 8, 2016. On February 17, 2016, with no objection to the bill remaining on the Consent Calendar, the bill was called up for Final Action, passing 40-0.

The bill was introduced into the House and assigned to the House Committee on Children and Families February 18, 2016. The Committee held hearings on the bill Thursday, March 03, 2016, 1:30 PM Room 152-S. The House Committee recommended passage of an amended bill updating references to the ‘Secretary of Corrections’ and to allow a county or district attorney access to files regarding any interested parties also involved in the pending matter. As amended, the House passed the bill Yea: 120 Nay: 0.

The Senate non-concurred in the House amendments on March 15, 2016, requesting appointment of a conference committee, to which the House acceded on March 17, 2016.

SB378: Employment discrimination; protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

This bill, introduced into the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Kansas Department of Labor, would prohibit employment discrimination and retaliation against victims (and perceived victims) of domestic violence and sexual assault under the provisions of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled hearings for Wednesday, February 10, 2016 in Room 346-S at 3:30 pm.

As introduced, the bill would have amended the definitions of “domestic violence” and “sexual assault” and provided for enforcement by the Kansas Human Rights Commission by reference to provisions in the Kansas Act Against Discrimination and through procedures specified in the bill. In the hearing before the Senate Committee, representatives of the Department of Labor and Kansas National Organization of Women testified in support of the bill. A representative of the Kansas Attorney General’s Office provided written testimony supporting the bill. The executive director of the Kansas Human Rights Commission testified as a neutral conferee. Representatives of the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence provided written neutral testimony.

The Senate Committee amended the bill to extend protections to crime victims, as defined in the amendment, and to bring the provision within the Kansas Act Against Discrimination to better define the enforcement procedures by the Kansas Human Rights Commission, recommending on February 19, 2016, that the Senate pass the bill.

On March 10, 2016, the Senate approved a motion to strike the bill from the Calendar, killing the bill for the session.

SB393: Child custody and parenting time: considering domestic abuse in determining the issue. (Passed Senate 40–0)(Referred to Judicial Council)(See SB418 CCR)

This bill seeks to make a finding of “domestic abuse” a “primary consideration” in any court decision on child legal custody, residency, and parenting time. It is the result of the work of an ad hoc group of various interested parties to increase the importance of domestic abuse and controlling behaviors in court’s considerations of child custody matters. It was introduced by the Committee on Public Health and Welfare. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill was set for hearing on Wednesday, February 10, 2016 in Room 346-S at 3:30 pm.

While the bill contains many good and needed provisions, it goes too far. Instead of providing that a court should consider abusive and controlling behavior, the bill catapults that consideration to be a first in line consideration for a court’s child custody decisions — rather than merely a significant consideration. The bill unfortunately seeks to inject into Kansas child custody decisions more conflict and more finger pointing, more false allegations and more dysfunction. It takes a good idea for improvement, but over does it. The removal of one word –”primary”– would make the bill much better.

On February 18, 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended the bill be passed by the full Senate without amendment. On February 23, 2016, the last day before turn around, the Senate Committee of the Whole recommended passage without amendment. The Senate adopted the bill unanimously (40-0) that same day on Emergency Final Action.

The bill was then introduced into the House, which referred the bill to the House Judiciary Committee. On March 9, 2016, the bill was set for hearing the next day (March 10, 2016), giving little notice of the planned hearing. Wichita attorney Charlie Harris and a Sedgwick County district court judge testified against the bill. A representative of the Kansas District Judges’ Association appeared with neutral testimony. Ronald W. Nelson presented neutral testimony suggesting that the bill be referred to the Kansas Judicial Council for review. All of the opposition and neutral testimony suggested that the bill as written would have a negative impact on children, families, and court dockets by encouraging increased hostility and questionable accusations while not providing any real benefit to victims of domestic violence. Instead, the testimony explained, it would bring “fault” back into family law cases even when not relevant to the particular situation.

Although this bill was referred to Judicial Council, attempts were made to include it in conference committee reports on other bills during the veto session.

SB394: Enacting the supporting families act, relating to temporary care for children (See SB418 CCR)

This bill resulted from a referral of SB159, the Safe Families Act, to the Kansas Judicial Council at the end of the 2015 Legislative Session. It is a complete redraft of the concept behind SB159, seeking to preserve parental rights, as well as the state’s parens patriae powers. The bill was sponsored by the Senate Judiciary Committee and assigned to that Committee for hearings. The bill was scheduled for hearing on Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 3:30pm in Room 346-S.

SB408: Abuse and neglect; reporting and investigation (PASSED SENATE 40–0)(HOUSE PASSED AMENDED 103–19)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(See SB418 CCR)

As introduced on February 4, 2016, this bill would have shifted the duties to investigate claims of child, adult, and elder abuse between the department of corrections, children and families, and attorney general’s office depending on the nature of the matter. The bill was assigned to the Senate Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice, but then reassigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held hearings on February 17, 2016. At that hearing  the Attorney General, the Executive Director of the Disability Rights Center of Kansas, and a private citizen testified in support of the bill. Written testimony in support of the bill was submitted by AARP Kansas and LeadingAge Kansas. A representative of DCF presented neutral testimony on the bill. No opponents testified at the hearing. The Senate Committee made technical amendments suggested by the Attorney General and DCF. As amended, the Senate passed the bill 40–0

When introduced to the House, the bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, which scheduled a hearing for March 09, 2016, at 3:30 PM in Room 112-N. The House Committee further amended the bill on March 4, 2016, by adding that  licensed behavior analysts and licensed assistant behavior analysts as mandatory reporters and giving the Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction with the Secretary of Corrections over cases of suspected child abuse or neglect in a KDOC institution. On March 23, 2016, the full House approved the House amended bill, Yea: 103 Nay: 19. The Senate non concurred in the amendments, and a Conference Committee was appointed.

SB410 Introduced: Establishing a CARE family pilot program (See SB297)(Passed Senate 24-15)

This is a retread of bills introduced in past sessions of the Kansas Legislature, including SB297, which was introduced in the 2015 Legislative Session). The bill was introduced in the Senate Committee on Judiciary at the request of Senator Knox. It would “establish a special category of foster care to be known as a CARE family.” For inclusion in the “special category” the family must consist of:

(1) A lawfully married couple in a stable relationship, married for at least seven years;
(2) submit to a background check on both spouses;
(3) no use of tobacco by anyone inside the family’s home;
(4) no history of unlawful drug use for the past seven years by anyone currently living in the family’s home;
(5) no alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverages in the family’s home;
(6) both spouses have attained at least a high school diploma or equivalent;
(7) at least one spouse does not work outside the home;
(8) the family is actively, regularly socially involved in their local
community; and
(9) provide the secretary at least three references from people familiar with the family.

The bill is another attempt to incorporate “traditional family” values into state foster care programs. The bill was scheduled for hearing on Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 3:30pm in Room 346-S, along with a group of other similar bills (SB315, SB394).

At the Senate Committee hearing on the bill, Senator Knox and a private citizen offered testimony in support of the bill. Representatives of Equality Kansas and Kansas Department of Children and Families provided neutral testimony. There was no opponent testimony. The Senate Committee adopted an amendment offered by Senator Knox to make establishment of the CARE family category discretionary; remove the distinction that CARE families were a “special” category of foster care; strike  language stating a CARE family home would not be considered a child care facility and would not be required to be licensed; require reimbursement of “actual” educational expenses; and rename the fund established for reimbursement of such expenses the “Juvenile Out-of-Home Placement” Education Fund, rather than the “CARE Family” Education Fund. As amended, the Committee recommended passage.

The Senate Committee of the Whole debated the bill on February 22, 2016. After debating the bill and numerous amendments trying to rid the Senate of this horrible bill, the Senate COW amended the bill only to add a mechanism for transfer of funds between school districts, via the Juvenile Out-Of-Home Placement Education Fund, based upon the district that the child leaves upon placement with a CARE family and the district in which the child is enrolled by the CARE family. On Final Action turn around day, February 23, 2016, the Senate passed the bill Yea: 24 Nay: 15 with these senators voting to pass the bill:

AbramsArpkeBaumgardnerBruceDenningDonovanFitzgeraldHolmes,
KingKnoxLaTurnerLoveLynn,MastersonMelcherOstmeyerPetersen,
Pilcher-CookPowellPyleSmithTysonWagleWilborn.

The bill was then sent to the House for consideration after turn-around. The bill was introduced into the House on March 2, 2016, assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The committee scheduled hearings on the bill for Tuesday, March 15, 2016, at 3:30p in Room 112-N.

 

SB418: Children in Need of Care; Human Trafficking; Family Law; child custody factors; “HOST” Families Act (PASSED SENATE 28-8)(AMENDED PASSED HOUSE 121–0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(CCR PASSED HOUSE 121-0)(CCR PASSED SENATE 33-5)(Governor signed May 17, 2016) – EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2016

This bill was introduced and assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 9, 2016.

It includes amendments adding definitions to the CINC code making any child who “has been subjected to an act which would constitute human trafficking or aggravated human trafficking” a child in need of care. In addition, however, it includes a new definition in the Code for a “reasonable and prudent parenting standard,” which is “characterized by careful and sensible parental decisions that maintain the health, safety and best interests of a child while at the same time encouraging the emotional and developmental growth of the child, that a caregiver shall use when determining whether to allow a child in foster care under the responsibility of the state to participate in extracurricular, enrichment, cultural and social activities.”

On February 18, 2016, the Judiciary Committee passed the bill out of committee without amendment recommending favorable passage.

In debate before the Senate Committee of the Whole, Senator Knox offered an amendment to the bill. The amendment would establish a “juvenile out-of-home placement education fund,” which would allow the expenditure of those funds for private, parochial education by families into which foster children are placed. As offensively amended, the bill passed the Senate Yea: 28 Nay: 8.

The bill was received and introduced into the House on March 2, 2016. It was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, which scheduled hearings on the bill for Tuesday, March 15, 2016 in Room 112-N.  At that hearing, Senator Knox testified in support of the provisions of the bill (he requested be added) by the Senate Committee of the Whole. A representative of OJA testified in favor of the bill as introduced and requested the provisions added by the Senate Committee of the Whole be removed, as they were not studied by the task force. A representative of DCF testified in support of the bill. A district judge who served on the task force submitted written testimony supporting the bill, but requested that the provisions added by the Senate Committee of the Whole on motion by Senator Knox be stricken the impact of those changes could be studied. An assistant Attorney General submitted written testimony supporting the bill. A representative of the Kansas Association of School Boards submitted written neutral testimony opposing the inclusion of school finance provisions in the bill.

On March 17, 2016, the House Committee recommended that the bill be passed as originally introduced, removing the provisions added by the Senate Committee of the Whole at Senator Knox’s request, but providing further amendments clarifying the reporting of missing persons. The House passed the bill unanimously (Yea: 125 Nay: 0) on March 22, 2016. The Senate non concurred in the amendments, and a Conference Committee was appointed.

On April 30, 2016, the Conference Committee issued its report in a “mega-family-law” bill mashing-up various bad bills from the session. First, the Conference Committee agreed to the House version of SB418, related to human trafficking, sexual exploitation of a child, children in need of care, and juvenile offenders. As explained by the CCR summary, the Conference Committee agreed to add the contents of:

  • a portion of SB393, as passed by the Senate, further modified by the Conference Committee, regarding domestic violence offender assessments and certified batterer intervention programs;
  • SB157, as passed by the Senate, regarding medicating of a child, with additional language defining “physician”;
  • SB325, as amended by House Committee and passed by the House, regarding access to files in child in need of care proceedings; and
  • S Sub for HB2112, as passed by the Senate, establishing the Host Families Act, with modifications drawn from H Sub for SB159, as recommended by House Committee, regarding the same topic. The modifications included:
    • adjusting the definition of “host family”;
    • adjusting the structure of the programs that may be created under the Act, the placing of a child into such programs, and the continuing power and authority of a parent;
    • adjusting the background checks required for potential host families;
    • adjusting the reimbursement that may be provided to a host family; and
    • removing language specifying that host families are not subject to requirements of child care facility or foster care licensing laws or rules and regulations.

The Conference Committee also agreed to incorporate language in the report reconciling the bill’s provisions with amendments already enacted in 2016 SB367.

On April 30, 2016, the House approved the CCR Yea: 121 Nay: 0. Later that same day, the Senate suspended Joint Rule 4(j) and approved the CCR Yea: 33 Nay: 5, sending the bill to the governor for approval.

The bill was enrolled and presented to Governor on Monday, May 09, 2016. The Governor signed this bad bill on May 17, 2016, making it effective July 1, 2016.

SB437: Health Care; Withholding life-sustaining health care, parent permissions (PASSED SENATE 37–3)

This bill was introduced in and assigned to the House Federal and State Affairs Committee on February 10, 2016. It carries the name, “Simon’s Law.” The bill would require a few things that are already done, including requiring that, “upon the request of a patient or resident or a prospective patient or resident, a health care facility, nursing home or physician shall disclose in writing any policies relating to a patient or resident or the services a patient or resident may receive involving life-sustaining or non-beneficial treatment within the health care facility or agency.”

The bill would also prohibit any health care facility from withholding “life-sustaining procedures, food, medication or nutrition, nor place any restrictions on life-sustaining procedures including, but not limited to, food, medication or nutrition for any patient, resident or ward under 18 years of age without the written permission of at least one parent or legal guardian of the patient or ward.”

At the Senate Committee hearing, testimony was provided by two private citizens and a representative of Kansans for Life, who stated the bill would protect the family’s wishes regarding a child’s life-sustaining treatments and resuscitation and ensure the transparency of the related written policies of hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians. Written proponent testimony was provided by representatives of the Disability Rights Center of Kansas and the Kansas Catholic Conference. There was no neutral or opponent testimony.

The Senate Committee amended the bill on March 3, 2016, to clarify the definitions for “life-sustaining” and “reasonable medical judgment”; clarify disclosure requirements; expand provisions related to written permission by legal guardians or parents and exceptions to written permission; and outline the legal procedure for when parents disagree on life-sustaining treatments or resuscitation. The bill was placed on the Senate Calendar, but initially passed over on March 17, 2016. The matter was presented to the Senate Committee of the Whole on March 21, 2016, which recommended that it pass. The full Senate passed the bill on March 22, 2016 Yea: 37 Nay: 3.

The bill passed over to the House on March 23, 2016, which assigned it to the House Committee on Health and Human Services.

On April 27, 2016, after First Adjournment when the House reconvened, the Speaker with withdrew the bill from Committee on Health and Human Services and referred it instead to the Committee on Federal and State Affairs (a committee exempt from the rules that bills must have passed both houses before first adjournment or they are dead bills).

SB439: Kansas Courts; grounds for impeachment of justices and judges (and others) (PASSED SENATE 21–19)

This bill is another duplicate from past sessions that seeks to threaten Kansas judges and justices with impeachment for case law decisions with which some members of the Kansas Legislature disagree. The Kansas Constitution provides that the governor and all other state officer, including justices, may be impeached and removed from office upon “conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

This bill adds significantly to the list of “offenses” for which impeachment against judges and justices would lie:

(a) Commission of treason;
(b) commission of bribery;
(c) commission of other indictable criminal offenses;
(d) commission of a breach of the public trust;
(e) commission of a breach of judicial ethics;
(f) failure to perform adequately the duties of office;
(g) attempting to subvert fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power;
(h) attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government;
(i) exhibiting discourteous conduct toward litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers or others with whom the justice or judge deals in an official capacity;
(j) exhibiting wanton or reckless judicial conduct;
(k) exhibiting personal misbehavior or misconduct;
(l) failure to properly supervise, administer or discipline judicial personnel; or
(m) 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 or which in accordance with section 15 of article 3 of the constitution of the state of Kansas may constitute grounds for discipline, suspension or removal for cause.

The bill was introduced by Senators Fitzgerald, Abrams, Arpke, Baumgardner, Donovan, Holmes, Knox, LaTurner, Lynn, Masterson, Melcher, O’Donnell, Olson, Petersen, Powell, Pyle, Smith and Tyson on February 10, 2016, one day before the Kansas Supreme Court issued its decision on the equities portion of Gannon v. Kansas, the long-running case asserting that the Kansas Legislature was underfunding Kansas schools contrary to constitutional mandate (on March 4, 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of a three-judge district court panel that, “the State established unconstitutional, wealth-based disparities by withholding all capital outlay state aid payments [and by prorating and reducing supplemental general state aid payments] to which certain school districts were otherwise entitled.” On February 17, 2016, this bill was incorporated into another anti-courts measure, SB440.

But to protect the bill itself, on February 22, 2016, the bill was Withdrawn from Committee on Judiciary and referred to Committee on Federal and State Affairs, then re-referred back to the Committee on the Judiciary the next day, February 23, 2016. On March 2, 2016, the Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing on the bill for Thursday, March 03, 2016, at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S. In the hearing before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Senator Holmes testified in support of the bill. Senator Smith and a representative of the reactionary, anti-court and anti-choice “biblically-based” advocacy group, the National Legal Foundation, provided written testimony supporting the bill. An attorney and representatives of the Kansas Association of Defense Counsel and Kansas District Judges Association testified in opposition to the bill. Representatives of the Kansas Association for Justice and Kansas Bar Association provided written testimony opposing the bill.

On March 11, 2016, the Senate Committee recommended the bill be passed with an amendment removing its application to appointed district court judges, applying it to constitutional officers of the executive department (i.e. the governor) as well as the courts, and adjusting the list of offenses and grounds for impeachment.

On March 21, 2016, the Senate Committee of the Whole debated the bill. Sen Smith (R-Shawnee) proposed an amendment that would provide for impeachment of any member of any branch of government for various specified “offenses.” The Kansas Constitution provides that judges and justices can only be impeached for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But this (and other bill introduced in the 2015 and 2016 Kansas Legislative Sessions) would allow impeachment for a broad range of vague and minor “offenses,” including “attempting to subvert fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power” and “attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government.” As reported by the Wichita Eagle, during the hourlong debate on the bill, Sen. Mitch Holmes (R-St. John), cited two examples of potential impeachable offenses for justices: the 2014 decision by the Supreme Court to allow a Democratic Senate candidate off the ballot without forcing the party to name a replacement, and a justice allowing her husband to hold a political fundraiser that she did not attend at their home. “Democrats railed against the impeachment bill.” “This bill, in my opinion, is nothing more than a political statement in an election year,” said Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley (D-Topeka).” Hensley said the clear intent of the bill was to intimidate the Supreme Court as it continues to render decisions in the Gannon school finance case that alleges the Legislature failed in its constitutional duty to provide suitable funding for education.

On final action held the next day, March 22, 2016, the bill passed by 2-votes: (21-19)

Yea – (21):

Abrams (R), Arpke (R), Baumgardner (R), Bruce (R), Fitzgerald (R), Holmes (R), Knox (R), LaTurner (R), Love (R), Lynn (R), Masterson (R), Melcher (R), Olson (R), Ostmeyer (R), Petersen (R), Pilcher-Cook (R), Powell (R), Pyle (R), Smith (R), Tyson (R), Wagle (R),

Nay – (19):

Bowers (R), Denning (R), Donovan (R), Faust-Goudeau (D), Francisco (D), Haley (D), Hawk (D), Hensley (D), Holland (D), Kelly (D), Kerschen (R), King (R), Longbine (D), McGinn (R), O’Donnell (R), Pettey (D), V. Schmidt (D), Wilborn (R), Wolf (R)

The bill was introduced to the House on the next day, and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

Sub SB440: Kansas courts; Supreme court general administrative authority over judicial branch (SUB SB440 PASSED 28-9) 

This bill was introduced by Senator Jeffrey King (chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and author/sponsor of the “nonseverability” clause included in the 2014 and 2015 judicial budget bills that were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in Solomon v. Kansas on December 23, 2015). The bill is massive. And although it includes many statutory amendments that cut out rambling language, the bill raises significant concerns. First, because it is directed at amending statutes dealing with the Supreme Court’s administrative authority, which was the basis for the Court’s decision that the “nonseverability” clause violated separation of powers principles. Second, because it is introduced by a legislator whose intentions raise significant suspicions about true intent. Third, because of the climate within which the bill is introduced.

Many of the changes proposed in the bill are stylistic (e.g. changing “spokesman” to “spokesperson”). Others, however, show more movement along the path intending to try to make the Kansas courts “self funding” (e.g. Section 2 strikes the existing language that court filing fees be paid into the state general fund, instead directing that those fees, “be remitted as provided by law,” which is the addressed in other sections).

The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which heard testimony on Monday, February 15, 2016, at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S. When the hearing did not conclude that day, a continuation hearing was held Wednesday, February 17, 2016. The Committee worked the bill February 17, 2016, amending into bill SB439, which includes provisions for the impeachment of judges and justices for a variety of “political crimes” and minor non-criminal behaviors (e.g. attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government;  exhibiting discourteous conduct toward litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers or others with whom the justice or judge deals in an official capacity; exhibiting wanton or reckless judicial conduct; exhibiting personal misbehavior or misconduct; failure to properly supervise, administer or discipline judicial personnel).

On February 19, 2016, the Senate Committee of the Whole debated the bill. The Senate Committee of the Whole amended the substitute bill by striking the language taken from SB439, regarding grounds for impeachment. The COW rejected language proposed by Minority Leader Hensley that would make the Court of Appeals a constitutionally protected court by a vote of Yea: 13 Nay: 26. On turn-around day, February 23, 2016, the Senate voted Yea: 28 Nay: 9 in favor of the substitute bill.

The substitute bill was introduced into the House on March 2, 2016 and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The House Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, March 8, 2016, at 3:30 PM in Room 112-N. The bill ended up being considered in conference committee with other bills intended to attack the Kansas courts.

 

SB454: Courts; amending court docket fees and charges. (PASSED SENATE 30–7)

This bill was introduced in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means on February 11, 2016 – the day the Kansas Supreme Court handed down a decision in the “equity” portion of the case asserting that the Legislature’s funding of Kansas public schools does not satisfy Kansas Constitutional requirements (Gannon v. State of Kansas). It was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which immediately scheduled a hearing on the bill for Wednesday, February 17, 2016, at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S (together with other bills regarding Kansas courts).

The bill appears to be a method of “off-loading” the Legislature’s responsibility to adequately fund the Kansas courts and to instead give that power – and the power of determining fees and costs – to the Supreme Court itself. Section 1 of the bill provides: “The supreme court shall determine the amount of any  docket fees to be charged and collected by the court system. The supreme  court may prescribe additional fees and costs to be charged. Such fees and  costs shall be reasonable and uniform throughout the state.” Section 2 of the bill provides for the creation of a fund in the state treasury into which “All expenditures from the electronic filing and management fund shall be for purposes of creating, implementing and managing an electronic filing and centralized case management system for the state court system” from which appropriations will be “issued pursuant to vouchers approved by the chief justice of the supreme court or by a person designated by the chief justice.” The bill amends other statutes that set out docket and court filing fees by deleting any stated amounts from those statutes – again, because the bill gives the power to set those fees in the supreme court itself. The required fiscal note states: “The Office of Judicial Administration indicates the enactment of SB 440 would result in significant changes in law, but until further study is given the fiscal effect cannot be reasonably estimated.” The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bill out of committee on February 18, 2016 recommending passage.

On February 23, 2016, the Senate Committee of the Whole passed over the bill directing that it retain a place on the calendar for further action after “turn around.” The bill was considered by the Senate Committee of the Whole on March 16, 2016, and was recommended to be pass by the full Senate without change. On March 17, 2016, the full Senate passed the bill Yea: 30 Nay: 7, with the following hard-line, anti-court senators voting against the clean-bill: BaumgardnerBruceHolmesKnoxOlsonPyleTyson.

The bill was introduced to the House on March 18, 2016, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Sub SB462: Civil procedure; protection from stalking; drones Regulating drones (See SB418)

As originally introduced on February 17, 2016, this bill would have provided a civil penalty for the “wrongful occupation of real property” when a person “operates an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system less than 350 feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying the real property” without permission of the landowner. It was referred to the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee, which held a hearing on the bill March 3, 2016.

On March 10, 2016, the Committee recommended a substitute bill be passed that would make changes to the Protection From Stalking Act. Under the substitute bill, the definition of “harassment” would be expanded to include any course of conduct carried out through the use of an unmanned aerial system over or near any dwelling, occupied vehicle, or other place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance.

When the judiciary conference committee convened, it included this bill in with a raft of other bills on CINC, juvenile justice, family law, and human trafficking in SB418.

 

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. KahrsE. DavisKahrsMcPherson, and Todd.

HCR5005, A PROPOSITION to amend the state constitution by revising article 3 relating to the judiciary (FAILED HOUSE 68–54)

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.

The proposed Constitutional Amendment was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which held hearings about it on February 11, 2015, at 3:30 PM in Room 112N. A week later, the Committee recommended adoption of  the Amendment with minor changes that did not correct any of the massive problems with the proposed Amendment.

After laying dormant for nearly one year, House GOP Leadership decided to bring the Resolution to the House Floor for debate on February 3, 2016. Reports from Representatives at the GOP caucus on the day before revealed GOP leadership threatening its own members with attempts to unseat them at in the 2016 election cycle if the members did not vote as GOP leadership wanted (i.e. against independent courts).

The proposed resolution came before the House Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, February 3, 2016. After hours long debate about the pros-and-cons of the proposed amendment — much of it focusing on cases decided by the Kansas Supreme Court with which the Governor and GOP leadership disagreed — the Committee of the Whole adopted the proposed amendment for passage with Committee amendments Yea: 69 Nay: 53 (less than the 2/3rds required for adoption, but more than the majority to advance to final vote).

Those voting against independent and merit-based courts and in favor of the proposed amendment instituting a political process were:

AnthimidesBarkerBartonBillingerBoldraBradfordBruchmanCampbellB. Carpenter,
W. CarpenterClaeys,CorbetE. DavisDeGraafDoveEdmondsEsauEstesEwy,
GarberGoicoGrosserodeHawkinsHedke,HemsleyHenryHighland,
HildabrandHoffmanHouserHuebertHutchinsHuttonJohnsonD. Jones,
K. Jones,KahrsKelleyKiegerlKleebLunnMacheersMasonMastMcPherson,
MerrickO’BrienOstermanPaulsPeck,RahjesReadRhoadesRubin,
RyckmanRyckman Sr.ScapaSchwabSchwartzC. SmithSuellentrop,
Sutton,ThimeschToddVickreyWaymasterWeberWhitmerK. Williams,

Those voting against the proposed amendment and to preserve the current merit selection independent courts were:

AlcalaAlfordBallardBeckerBollierBurroughsCarlinCarmichaelClark,
ClaytonConcannonCurtisDierks,DollFinchFinneyFrancisFrownfelter,
GallagherHelgersonHendersonHibbardHighbergerHillHineman,Houston,
JenningsKellyKuetherLewisLuskLuskerMoxleyOusleyF. PattonPhillips,
ProehlRookerRuiz,SawyerSchroederScottSloanS. SwansonThompson,
TietzeTrimmerVictorsWardWhippleWilsonWinn,Wolfe Moore,

R. Powell did not vote, although present. GonzalezSeiwert, were not present and did not vote.

The House considered the proposed amendment for final consideration on Thursday, February 4, 2015. But after additional heavy “lobbying” trying to force passage of the amendment to strip the Kansas supreme court of merit selection, the proposal failed (was not adopted by required 2/3 majority)  Yea: 68 Nay: 54

Those Representatives voting on final action to politicize the Kansas court selection process and do away with merit selection were:

AnthimidesBarkerBartonBillingerBoldraBradfordBruchmanCampbell,
B. CarpenterW. CarpenterClaeys,CorbetE. DavisDeGraafDoveEdmonds,
EsauEstesGarberGoicoGonzalezGrosserodeHawkinsHedke,Hemsley,
HighlandHildabrandHoffmanHouserHuebertHutchinsHuttonJohnson,
D. JonesK. JonesKahrs,KelleyKleebLunnMacheersMasonMastMcPherson,
MerrickO’BrienOstermanPaulsPeckR. Powell,RahjesReadRhoadesRubin,
RyckmanRyckman Sr.ScapaSchwabSchwartzC. SmithSuellentropSutton,
ThimeschToddVickreyPaymasterWeberWhitmerK. Williams,

Those voting on final action to preserve merit selection and resist political pressure to politicize the courts selection process were:

AlcalaAlfordBallardBeckerBollierBurroughsCarlinCarmichaelClark,
ClaytonConcannonCurtisDierks,DollEwyFinchFinneyFrancisFrownfelter,
GallagherHelgersonHendersonHibbardHighbergerHill,HinemanHouston,
JenningsKellyKuetherLewisLuskLuskerMoxleyOusleyF. PattonPhillips,
ProwlRookerRuizSawyerSchroederScottSloanS. SwansonThompson,
TietzeTrimmerVictorsWardWhipple,WilsonWinnWolfe Moore,

Representatives HenryKiegerlSeiwert, were absent and did not vote.

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

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.

The Concurrent Resolution was again set for hearing at the beginning of the 2016 Legislative Session on Tuesday, January 13–14, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, February 16, 2016, 3:30 PM Room 112-N, which ended up being 3 days after the sudden death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  As reported by the Lawrence Journal-World:

“While some people who spoke to the Kansas House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday said they feared any change in the current system in Kansas would only inject more politics in the process, similar to what’s being witnessed at the federal level, at least one member of the panel said he thought that might be a healthy thing for Kansas.

“‘I know at least from my constituents’ perspective, their line is something along the lines of, ‘Thank God we have the Senate to protect us from a liberal activist appointee,'” said Rep. Craig McPherson, R-Overland Park.

“The plan now being debated in the committee would completely rewrite Article 3 of the Kansas Constitution to include provisions for both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The appeals court is currently only authorized under statute.

“It would also use the merit-based selection process for both courts, repealing the change made a few years ago to have Court of Appeals judges appointed directly by the governor, subject to Senate confirmation.

“But it would expand the nominating commission that screens those candidates from nine members to 15: four elected by Kansas attorneys; five appointed by the governor; and six appointed by legislative leaders from both parties.”

“Matthew Keenan of Leawood, a member of the current nominating commission, said the other states that use similar systems also have provisions that prevent either political party from having more than a one-seat majority on their panels, something he said is not included in the plan now being considered.

“‘And with all due respect, I think inevitably, the risk of at least perception of politics begins to creep into the process when you talk about political members having the opportunity to make appointments,’ he said.

“Keenan defended the current selection process, arguing that in 2014, the last time there was a vacancy on the court, the commission sent the governor three highly qualified nominees. He said Kansas should keep the current system because it has produced good results.”

The Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Barker (R-Abilene) did not indicate when–or if–the panel might take action on the measure.

HCR5014: A PROPOSITION to amend the state constitution by clarifying the power of the legislature to make appropriations

Yet another in the line of proposed constitutional amendments to limit the power of the Kansas courts to interpret and enforce state constitutional limitations on the legislature, this proposed amendment would amend Article 24, Section 2 of the Kansas Constitution to prohibit the executive and judicial branches from directing “the legislative branch to make any appropriation of money or to redirect the expenditure of funds appropriated by law, except as the legislative branch may provide by law, or as may be required by the Constitution of the United States.” The amendment would further invalidate any “existing order directing the legislative branch to make an appropriation of money”. The proposed amendment was a reaction to the Kansas Supreme Court’s Gannon decision (and its progeny) finding that the Legislature had consistently violated the Kansas constitutional requirement to adequately fund public education in the state.

The proposed amendment was filed on February 12, 2015 and assigned to the House Federal & State Affairs Committee, which did not hold hearings on it during the 2015 Session.

HCR5015: A PROPOSITION to amend the state constitution providing for the governor to appoint supreme court justices and court of appeals judges, subject to senate confirmation

An attempt at compromise on the Legislative battles over the Kansas courts, this amendment would make the court of appeals –as well as the supreme court– constitutional courts (to protect the court of appeals from the political winds of the time). The proposed amendment would change the procedure for selecting supreme court justices and court of appeals judges and to change the membership of the nonpartisan supreme court nominating commission. The gubernatorial appointments to the nonpartisan supreme court nominating commission would be increased from four members to five members. Licensed Kansas attorneys would continue to elect four members of the commission. The commission would continue to nominate three persons for appointment by the governor, but a 2/3 majority vote would be required to submit any person’s name to the governor.

The proposed amendment was filed on February 17, 2015 and assigned to the House Federal & State Affairs Committee, which did not hold hearings on it.

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-N Thursday, 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.

On February 8, 2016, the bill was withdrawn from the Committee on Appropriations and re-referred to House Judiciary Committee. On February 12, 2016, the Judiciary Committee recommended that the full House pass the bill as amended.

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 Substitute for HB 2062 by Committee on Judiciary – Uniform commercial code (UCC) updates; exclusion of consumer transactions governed by federal law; other technical corrections (PASSED HOUSE 122-0)(AMENDED PASSED SENATE 39-0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE)(AMENDED PASSED HOUSE 117-0)(GOVERNOR SIGNED, May 9, 2016) – EFFECTIVE July 1, 2016

According to its sponsors, HB2062 (as originally introduced) sought 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.

Although not acted upon in the 2015 Session, the House Judiciary Committee received a staff briefing on the bill Monday, February 8, 2016 (indicating possible action or amendments). On February 15, 2016, the Committee recommended a substitute bill be inserted into the now hollow bill making it a Uniform Commercial Code amendments bill (previously HB2124). On February 16, 2016, the House Committee of the Whole approved the substitute bill without further amendment. On Final Action February 17, 2016, the House passed the substitute bill Yea: 122 Nay: 0.

The bill was introduced to the Senate on February 17, 2016 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate Committee held hearings for the bill on Thursday, March 03, 2016, at 10:30 AM in Room 346-S. The Senate Committee changed the effective date to publication in the Kansas Register. As further amended, the House Substitute bill passed the Senate 39-0.

The House non concurred in the Senate amendment, and a Conference Committee was appointed. On April 29, 2016, the House reconsidered it nonconcurrence in the Senate amendments, approving the amended bill Yea: 117 Nay: 0.

The bill was enrolled and sent to the governor for signature on Tuesday, May 03, 2016. The Governor signed the bill May 9, 2016, making the bill effective July 1, 2016.

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.

The bill resurfaced in the 2016 session, however, with a hearing reset for Monday, February 8, 2016 at 3:30 pm in Room 112 N. The bill came up for committee consideration on February 17, 2016, but did not pass out of committee by one vote (10-11). A Topeka Capital Journal article noted: “Rep. Craig McPherson (R-Overland Park) [District 8] voted against the legislation. He said such actions should be handled in civil court, not criminal court. ‘There are times when an individual is very personally damaged but the state interest is very limited,’ he argued.”

S Sub for HB2112Courts; county law libraries funds for district court use  (Passed House 123–1) Children and families; enacting the “host families act”; relating to temporary care for children. (See SB418)

This bill was introduced on January 23, 2015, and was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for hearing. As originally introduced, HB2112 would have allowed the board of trustees of a county law library to authorize the chief judge of the judicial district to use fees collected by the law library “for the purpose of facilitating and enhancing functions of the district court of the county.” The bill arose from an underfunding issue in Dickinson County (Abilene) in which the court could not adequately fund needed security and infrastructure improvements (in part because of chronic court underfunding) and the perception of “excess funds” being held by the county law library.

Originally set for committee hearing on Thursday, February 5, 2015 3:30 PM Room 112-N. Seen as a raid on county law library funds, the Johnson County Law Library Board of Trustees and others opposed the bill in Committee.  The February 5, 2015 hearing was cancelled on January 30, 2015. On February 24, 2015, the bill was re-assigned to the House Committee on Appropriations (an exempt committee) so that it would survive committee deadline. On March 4, 2015, the bill was withdrawn from the Committee on Appropriations and re-assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, which rescheduled it for hearing on March 05, 2015, 3:30 PM Room 112-N.

At the March 5, 2015 hearing, the Johnson County Law Library Executive Director appeared speaking for the Board’s opposition. Representatives of the Sedgwick and Douglas county law libraries offered written “neutral” testimony in which they requested an exemption from the bill’s coverage. The House Committee amended the bill to prohibit judges from participating in decisions to authorize the use of such fees and to exclude Johnson and Sedgwick Counties. The House Committee of the Whole considered the bill on March 23, 2015. The full House passed the bill on March 24, 2015, as amended by the Judiciary Committee Yea: 123 Nay: 1.

The bill was introduced to the Senate on March 25, 2015, and was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On March 11, 2016, nearly one year later, the Senate Judiciary Committee, without hearing, substituted all new language for the previous county law library bill and passed out of Committee that substitute bill.

The substitute bill language came from language modified from SB394, the “Host Families Act” bill. The modifications included changing the name from the “Supporting Families Act” to the “Host Families Act,” inserting language regarding parental rights, clarifying that a host family shall not receive compensation but may receive reimbursement that is voluntarily contributed, and modifying language related to the provision of information by DCF.

SB394 was originally introduced by the Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare. In the hearing before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Representative Rhoades, Senator Pilcher-Cook, and a representative of DCF testified in support of the bill. A representative of the Foundation for Government Accountability (a reactionary advocacy group based in Florida and closely tied to ALEC) provided written testimony supporting the bill. There was no neutral or opponent testimony presented at the hearing.

The substitute bill would allow a “parent” (defined in the Act) or “legal custodian” of a child to execute a power of attorney, in a form designated by and included in the Act, to delegate to another person (the host family, defined in the Act) for up to one year any powers regarding the care and custody of the child, except for the powers 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 could not be delegated. The power of attorney could be extended for one additional year following the expiration of the original one- year term.

The bill “popped-up” on the House General Calendar for debate by the House Committee of the Whole Tuesday, March 15, 2016. This bill is part of the plan to privatize all state government and to provide end-run possibilities from state actions to protect children from abuse and neglect.

Ultimately, the bill was included in the 2016 “mega-bill” including family law amendments, CINC amendments and various other bad provisions (See SB418)

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, 2015 Thursday, 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.

At the beginning of the 2016 Session, the bill was scheduled for a “briefing,” “discussion and possible action” by the Committee on January 21, 2016 at 3:30pm.

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

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.

HB2269: Child support; Lottery, gaming, parimutuel winnings, debt set off
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.
HB2277: Children; Enacting a “Kansas Child Protection Registry Act”
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.
HB2323: Kansas Act Against Discrimination; prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity
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. But at the beginning of the 2016 Legislative Session, the bill was scheduled for hearing on Thursday, January 13, 2016 before the House Judiciary Committee at 3:30 PM Room 112-N. The bill did not make it out of committee (unsurprisingly).
HB2342: Children; determination of father and child relationship

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.

HB2363: Courts; repealing the requirement of one judge, one county
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.
HB2375: Enacting the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act
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.
HB 2449: Repeal ‘Non-Severability’ Clause in Kansas Judicial Funding, Providing for Severability of Provisions (Passed House 119–0)(Passed Senate 39–1)(Governor signed February 8, 2016)(Effective February 11, 2016)
This bill (and its companion SB320) seek to retroactively repeal a provision included in the 2014 and 2015 Kansas Judicial Funding bills that provided that if any part or portion of the bill was found unconstitutional, the entire bill would be invalid. This bill was made necessary when the Kansas Supreme Court found unconstitutional for violation of the doctrine of separation of powers a provision in the bill providing for selection of chief judges in each judicial district by the sitting judges in that district, rather than by appointment of the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court as provided by Kansas Supreme Court administrative rules. Solomon v State of Kansas
The bill was assigned to the House Appropriations Committee, which scheduled it for hearing on January 14, 2016 at 9:00 am in Room 112-N. That same day, the Committee recommended the bill for favorable passage by the full House. On January 21, 2016, the House Committee of the Whole recommended favorable passage by the full House, which did so on Emergency Final Action the same day with a vote of   Yea: 119 Nay: 0
The bill was then introduced into the Kansas Senate, which assigned the bill immediately to the Senate Committee of the Whole, instead of to a working committee. The Senate Committee of the Whole recommended passage on January 28, 2016, and the full Senate immediately passed the bill on Emergency Final Action, with a vote of Yea: 39 Nay: 1
The bill was then sent on to the governor, who signed the bill February 8, 2016. The bill became effective upon its publication in the Kansas Register on February 11, 2016, ending a sad mini-chapter in the Legislature’s assault on the fair, impartial, and independent court system.
HB 2451: Expanding the List of Mandatory Reporters

This bill would expand the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse to animal control officers. The bill was introduced by the Committee of Federal and State Affairs. The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice. The bill was heard on Wednesday, January 27, 2016, 1:30 PM Room 152-S.

HB2501: Clarifying the definition of crime committed with an electronic device, penalties for ‘revenge porn’ (Passed House 113–11)(Passed Senate Amended 39-0)(CONFERENCE COMMITTEE) (CCR PASSED  SENATE 40-0)(CCR PASSED HOUSE 119-0)(Governor signed May 17, 2016)(Effective July 1, 2016)

 

This bill was originally introduced into the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice on January 21, 2016, at the request of the Kansas Attorney General. As introduced, the bill amended the definition of a crime committed with an electronic device. The bill was assigned to the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice, which scheduled the bill for hearing Wednesday, February 03, 2016, 1:30 PM in Room 152-S. On February 8, 2016, the Committee passed out the bill recommending bill be passed and placed on Consent Calendar.

 When debated by the House Committee of the Whole, Representative Carlin offered an amendment to the bill to include provisions making criminal “revenge porn” (breach of privacy and blackmail). This amendment was modified from language originally included in HB2080 (which was introduced in the House Committee on Judiciary at the request of Representative Stephanie Clayton). Rep. Clayton said that if passed, Kansas would become the 27th state to make revenge porn illegal. On February 18, 2016, the House COW approved the amendment Yea: 96 Nay: 23, with the following representatives voting “no’:

BarkerBartonE. DavisGarberGonzalezGrosserodeHighlandHoffman,
HouserHuttonD. JonesK. Jones,KelleyKiegerlLunnMacheersMast,
McPhersonMerrickPaulsRyckmanSchroederVickrey,

The bill was approved Yea: 113 Nay: 11 by the full House on February 22, 2016 and passed on to the Senate. The following representatives voted against the bill:

BarkerE. DavisDoveHawkinsHuttonMacheersMcPhersonRhoades,
RyckmanSuttonWhitmer,

Representative Ewy was not present and did not vote.

The bill was assigned for hearing to the Senate Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee on February 23, 2016 at 9:30 am in Room 118-N. On March 11, 2016, the Senate Committee adopted an amendment to the House passed bill removing “state of undress” from the breach of privacy provision, replacing that phrase with criminalizing the dissemination of video or images (without permission) of a “nude” “identifiable person over the age of 18 years” “engaged in sexual activity and under circumstances in which such identifiable person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to harass, threaten or intimidate such identifiable person.

As amended, the bill was debated by the Senate Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, March 15, 2016. On final action, the Senate approved the bill  Yea: 39 Nay: 0. On March 21, 2016, the House nonconcurred in the Senate amendments sending the bill to conference committee.

On April 29, 2016, the Conference Committee issued its report, which agreed to the Senate version of HB2501, regarding blackmail, breach of privacy, and crimes committed with an electronic device, and further added into the bill SB391, as passed by the Senate, creating the crimes of unlawful transmission and unlawful possession of a visual depiction of a child, with additional language specifying that it is not illegal for a person under the age of 19 to possess a visual depiction of a child in a state of nudity who is 16 years of age or older.

The Conference Committee version of the bill passed the Senate Yea: 40 Nay: 0 on April 29, 2016, and passed the House Yea: 119 Nay: 0 that same day on suspension of Joint Rule 4(j), sending the bill on to the governor during the veto session.

The bill was enrolled and presented to Governor on Monday, May 09, 2016.

HB2556: Grandparents as Caregivers Act, reducing age

This bill was introduced by Rep Claeys (R-Salina) and assigned to the House Committee on Children and Families. The bill amend the Grandparents as Caregivers Act to lower the age of the grandparents encompassed by the act from 60 to 50, and would provide that “children cared for under the grandparents as caregivers act are deemed and shall be certified as foster children for the purpose of receiving free and reduced-price school lunches.” The bill was scheduled for hearing by the House Committee near the end of all session committee hearings and Committee action March 15, 2016 in Room 218-N for 9:00 am.

HB 2562: Parentage; retroactive child support guidelines
This bill would make significant changes to the way retroactive child support is awarded in Kansas parentage cases. The bill was introduced by Rep Swanson (R-Clay Center) and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.  The bill would essentially create a statute of limitations on the bringing of an action for retroactive child support of 4-years after a child reaches majority (age 22) and remove the presumption that the Kansas child support guidelines should only be used to determine retroactive child support back 5 years (with any retroactivity requested earlier than that be by evidence showing the expenses actually incurred). In addition, when ordering retroactive child support, “the court shall consider the net resources of the obligor during the relevant time period and whether: (A) The mother of the child had made any previous attempts to notify the obligor of his paternity or probable paternity; (B) the obligor had knowledge of his paternity or probable paternity; (C) the order of retroactive child support will impose an undue financial hardship on the obligor or the obligor’s family; and (D) the obligor has provided actual support or other necessaries before commencement of the action.” In other words, the bill would further shift responsibility to the mother and away from the father, putting additional burdens of proof and presumption upon single mothers who had not previously sought child support from the child’s other parent.
HB2585: Establishing the foster care oversight task force.
This bill was introduced to the House Committee on Children and Families and assigned to that Committee. The bill would establish a foster care oversight task force to examine problems with the Kansas foster care system and seek corrections to those many problems. The bill was scheduled for hearing Tuesday, February 16, 2016, 9:00 AM in Room 218-N. On February 22, 2016, the Committee recommended that the bill be passed with an amendment providing for an additional data request that could be made of Kansas Department of Children and Families, and that would establish a sunset date for the Task Force, together with various technical amendments. On February 23, 2016, the bill was withdrawn from the Calendar and referred to the Committee on Appropriations (an exempt committee) to protect the bill from turn around deadlines.
On March 2, 2016, the bill was referred back to the House Committee on Children and Families, which amended the bill to insert an additional data request that could be made of DCF, establish a sunset date for the Task Force, and make technical amendments, recommending the bill be passed by the full House on March 10, 2016.
HB2652: Courts; increasing the number of nominees presented by nominating commissions (See SB418)
This bill is another in a long line of attempts by Kansas Legislators to subvert and to politicize the Kansas judiciary. Introduced February 9, 2016, shortly before the Kansas Supreme Court issued its opinion finding (again) that the Legislature was unconstitutionally underfunding Kansas schools, this bill would increase from 3 to 5 the number of judge candidates submitted by nominating commissions to the governor. The bill was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee and assigned to that Committee for hearing. The hearing was held Wednesday, February 17, 2016, at 3:30 PM in Room 112-N. On February 18, 2016, the Judiciary Committee worked the bill, voting to recommend that the full House pass the bill without amendment.
On turn around day, February 23, 2016, the bill was stricken from Calendar by Rule 1507. But the bill language ended up being included in a massive anti-courts (third) conference committee bill passed on the next-to-last day of the veto session as SB418.
HB2687: Supreme court; administrative authority (See also SB440)
This bill was introduced by the House Committee on Appropriations February 11, 2016 – the day on which the Kansas Supreme Court handed down a decision in the “equity” portion of the case asserting that the Legislature’s funding of Kansas public schools does not satisfy Kansas Constitutional requirements (Gannon v. State of Kansas). It was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. It is a duplicate bill to SB440.
HB2704: Courts; salaries of judges and justices; appropriations for fiscal year 2017.
This bill was introduced by the House Committee on Ways and Means on February 16, 2016.
HB2705: Courts; amending court docket fees and charges (See SB454)

This bill was introduced by the House Committee on Appropriations February 16, 2016 – the Tuesday after the Kansas Supreme Court handed down a decision in the “equity” portion of the case asserting that the Legislature’s funding of Kansas public schools does not satisfy Kansas Constitutional requirements (Gannon v. State of Kansas). It was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. It is a duplicate bill to SB454.

The bill appears to be a method of “off-loading” the Legislature’s responsibility to adequately fund the Kansas courts and to instead give that power – and the power of determining fees and costs – to the Supreme Court itself. Section 1 of the bill provides: “The supreme court shall determine the amount of any  docket fees to be charged and collected by the court system. The supreme  court may prescribe additional fees and costs to be charged. Such fees and  costs shall be reasonable and uniform throughout the state.” Section 2 of the bill provides for the creation of a fund in the state treasury into which “All expenditures from the electronic filing and management fund shall be for purposes of creating, implementing and managing an electronic filing and centralized case management system for the state court system” from which appropriations will be “issued pursuant to vouchers approved by the chief justice of the supreme court or by a person designated by the chief justice.” The bill amends other statutes that set out docket and court filing fees by deleting any stated amounts from those statutes – again, because the bill gives the power to set those fees in the supreme court itself.

The House Judiciary Committee scheduled hearings on the bill for Tuesday, March 08, 2016, at 3:30 PM in Room 112-N, but ended up using SB255 and SB454 as the vehicles for updating statutes on docket fees, e-filing fees, and other funds.

HB2727: Child Support; authorizing secretary for children and families to prohibit registration or renewal of registration of certain vehicles and certain vessels and boats by a person owing money under a support order.

This bill was introduced on March 9, 2016 into the House Committee on Social Services Budget and immediately set for hearing on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 330p in Room 144-S. The bill would add restrictions authorized by federal law for the enforcement of child support arrearages as noted in the bill’s title.

On March 17, 2016, DCF testified on the bill DCF mentioning that amendments were needed to correct the bill, so the bill was not ready for consideration. In addition, four county Treasurers’ offices (including Johnson and Sedgwick Counties) oppose the bill because of the additional requirements it would put on them.

No bills were introduced in the 2015 session to make more difficult the dissolution of marriage, but on February 11–12, 2015, the House Federal and State Affairs Committee held two-days of hearings on “marriage.” During the 2015 Session, the Committee was chaired by Rep. Steve Brunk, who arranged for various “pro-marriage” (anti-equal-marriage) advocates to speak to the committee about the horrors of having same-sex couples caring for children. Representative Brunk resigned his seat on December 18, 2015 (effective January 4, 2016), after joining the right-wing anti-equal-marriage advocacy group, the Family Policy Institute (after initially saying that he would not resign his legislative position).  In an article on February 8, 2015, the Lawrence Journal-World reported that, “one of the key questions to be addressed is whether Kansas has made it too easy for couples to get divorced, especially in cases that do not involve domestic violence.” The article quoted Rep. Janice Pauls (R-Hutchinson) as saying, “Some people have suggested it would be helpful to have requirements of counseling, or extended or longer waiting periods, as long as it doesn’t involve domestic violence or problems like that.” Repeatedly, legislators have continually raised the specter of the “easy divorce,” claiming that the country’s moral decay was due, in part, to the lack of commitment in marriage and that one way to reverse America’s decline is to force people to stay in marriage. In recent years, the Kansas Legislature has considered proposals for “covenant marriages,” reimposition of “fault” divorce, and requirements for extensive premarital counseling. All of those proposals have failed after encountering a backlash from the public. With the 2016 state and national elections, the legislature will undoubtedly hear much more than it did last year about these issues.