Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas legislature

Articles about the Kansas legislature, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

  • Sedgwick County voter registration changes: Impact on senate races

    During the Kansas primary election season, there have been efforts to recruit Democratic party voters to change their voter registration to Republican in order to participate in Republican party primary races. Kansas National Education Association (KNEA) has asked teachers union members to switch their voter registration in order to vote in Republican primaries. KNEA has asked this on its website and in an email that has received widespread attention.

    Former Wichita Mayor Elma Broadfoot has recorded telephone calls urging Democrats to switch party registration so they may vote for moderate Republicans, reports the Wichita Eagle.

    Whether this effort will be successful is unknown. But we now know, for Sedgwick County, how many people have changed their voter registration to Republican in recent months.

    I took a Sedgwick County voter file obtained in May and compared it to one current as of Friday, which is after the deadline for changing voter registration. In the accompanying table, I counted voters who switched to Republican registration from some other party. I grouped the data by Kansas Senate district, as this is where much of the focus has been. I also present totals for Sedgwick County, as some county-wide races may also be impacted.

    Voter registration party changes in Sedgwick County

    It’s important to remember that some of these senate districts are not totally within Sedgwick County, and this table includes only Sedgwick County voters. Districts 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are entirely within the county, and all voters in these districts are represented in the table.

    Numbers in context

    Now that we know the number of voters who switched to Republican registration, are these numbers large enough to affect any races? The answer is we simply don’t know. We don’t know why these voters switched to Republican registration. Their motive may be to vote for the moderate candidate, but there could be other reasons, too.

    To place these numbers in context, consider the race for senate district 25, which pits incumbent Jean Schodorf against Wichita City Council Member Michael O’Donnell. In this district, 230 voters switched to Republican registration.

    In the 2008 primary, 2,435 people voted for Schodorf, but there was no opponent. About 4,000 voted for Les Donovan in his primary, and about the same for Susan Wagle in her district, but again these races were uncontested. In the 2008 general election, 16,016 voted for Schodorf over 9,530 cast for her opponent, for a total of 25,546 votes cast, plus a few write-ins. But general elections, by their nature, have a much higher turnout than primaries.

    A better election to compare is the 2004 Republican primary for senate district 30 in east Wichita, when former Wichita Mayor Bob Knight challenged incumbent Susan Wagle in a race that received much attention. Knight received 3,140 votes to Wagle’s 5,624, for a total of 8,764 votes cast.

    230 voters switching registration out of a potential vote total of 8,764 is 2.6 percent. Many races are decided by less than that margin. But again, we don’t know the intent of these 230 voters, and while these voters are probably more motivated than most, some may not vote.

    We should also note that district 27 had 223 voters switch to Republican affiliation during the same period. Incumbent Les Donovan has no primary opponent. He will face a Democrat in the general election, but party registration doesn’t matter at that time. In district 30, 160 voters switched to Republican registration. Incumbent Susan Wagle has no primary opponent.

    It’s also noteworthy that switching to Republican registration is not the only action I observed. For example, in District 25, while 230 voters switched to Republican, 51 Democratic voters switched to Unaffiliated registration, 42 Republicans switched to Unaffiliated, and seven voters became Libertarian party voters. On election day Unaffiliated voters can switch their registration to Republican and vote in the primary.

    Finally, there are new voters of all parties, including Republican. The analysis above counts only voters who changed party registration to Republican.

    Overall, 2,001 voters in Sedgwick County switched party registration during this two-month period, with 1,126 switching to Republican.

  • In Kansas, political signs are okay, despite covenants

    It’s common for neighborhoods to have restrictive covenants that prohibit homeowners from placing any signs in their yard, except for signs advertising homes for sale. But a 2008 Kansas law overrides these restrictive covenants to allow for the placement of small political yard signs starting 45 days before an election. Still, residents of covenant neighborhoods may want to observe their neighborhood’s restrictions, even though they are not valid under the law.

    The bill was the product of then-Senator Phil Journey of Haysville. The bill passed unanimously in both the Kansas House and Senate.

    According to the First Amendment Center, some 50 million people live in neighborhoods with homeowners associations. And laws like the 2008 Kansas law are not without controversy, despite the unanimous vote in the Kansas Legislature.

    While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that governmental entities like cities can’t stop homeowners from displaying political yard signs, a homeowners association is not government. Instead, it is a group that people voluntarily enter.

    Generally, when prospective homeowners purchase a home in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants, they are asked to sign a document pledging to comply with the provisions in the covenants. If those covenants prohibit political yard signs, but a Kansas law says these covenants do not apply, what should a homeowner do?

    Practically: Should you display signs in your yard?

    While Kansas law makes it legal for those living in communities with covenants that prohibit political yard signs, residents may want to observe these convents. Here’s why: If neighbors are not aware of this new Kansas law and therefore still believe that the yard signs are not allowed in your neighborhood, they may think residents with signs in their yards are violating the covenants. By extension, this could reflect poorly on the candidates that are being promoted.

    The people who believe the covenants against yard signs are valid are misinformed, but they may vote. Whether to display yard signs in a covenant neighborhood is a judgment that each person will have to make for themselves.

    The Kansas statute

    K.S.A. 58-3820. Restrictive covenants; political yard signs; limitations. (a) On and after the effective date of this act, any provision of a restrictive covenant which prohibits the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, during a period commencing 45 days before an election and ending two days after the election is hereby declared to be against public policy and such provision shall be void and unenforceable.

    (b) The provisions of this section shall apply to any restrictive covenant in existence on the effective date of this act.

    Or, as described in the 2008 Summary of Legislation: “The bill invalidates any provision of a restrictive covenant prohibiting the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, 45 days before an election or two days after the election.”

  • Kansas private sector jobs lag government jobs

    Government jobs in Kansas have been growing at the expense of private sector jobs.

    Some mistakenly say that government employees are good for the economy, because their paychecks pump up the economy. But this analysis ignores the source of government employees’ paychecks, which are taxes. (Or borrowing, which simply delays taxation to some future time, or inflation, which robs money of its value. Fortunately Kansas can’t engage in inflationary monetary policies, but it does borrow.)

    If people are not taxed, they spend or invest their money in the way they feel best benefits them. Politicians spend taxpayers’ money for political reasons, say to reward campaign contributors with padded no-bid contracts.

    In fact, for many politicians creating government jobs is a good thing. To them, it doesn’t matter whether the jobs are productive, or whether people really want or need what the government workers produce. In the private sector — where firms compete with others for scare resources and the value of activity is judged by profitability — efficiency is prized. Minimizing costs is the goal. Innovation abounds.

    As the following chart illustrates, private sector employment growth has lagged behind the growth of government employment. This has happened during the decade that is now being described by some as a period of “reasonableness,” with Kansas taking a “balanced” and “responsible” approach to government. The numbers in the chart illustrate the results of these policies.

    This trend has been known. In 2005 Alan Cobb, then State Director of Americans for Prosperity–Kansas, wrote “Unbelievably, this century Kansas has lost 16,700 private sector jobs while the government sector actually added 15,000 jobs.”

    In 2011 there were efforts to reform Kansas government so that the cost of government is not so burdensome to the private sector. There was the Kansas Streamlining Government Act, an act to create the Kansas Advisory Council on Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships, and an act to implement performance measures similar to what many business firms use. These bills passed the House of Representatives but didn’t make it through the Senate. See In Kansas, there are ways to reduce the cost of government for details on these measures.

    By the way, during this campaign season the Kansas Senate is being described as the last hope for the “reasonable” approach to Kansas government that has produced the results illustrated below.

    Kansas private sector job growth compared to other statesKansas job growth. Data is indexed, with January 2001 equal to 1. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

  • Kansas reasonable: The legacy

    As campaigns for positions in the Kansas Legislature heat up, some are calling for voters to support candidates who will follow a tradition of “reasonableness” that, they say, is characteristic of successful Kansas politicians — the “traditional” Republicans.

    Others call for a “balanced” approach to government and “responsible tax reform.” Senate President Steve Morris contributes an op-ed in support of “incumbent senators who put their local communities above the agendas of these special interest groups.”

    Reasonable, balanced, responsible. These are words that promote a positive image, although sometimes negative words are used, as in criticism of Kansas tax reform as “reckless.”

    So what is the record of the reasonable Kansas politicians? The first decade of this century was marked by a legislature and governors that were, well, reasonable. During this decade the Kansas economy performed poorly. A chart of the number of private sector jobs in Kansas as compared to a few surrounding states over the past eleven years shows Kansas at or near the bottom. (Kansas is the thick black line. Data is indexed so that all states start at the same relative position.)

    The record of Kansas government policies has not been one we can be proud of. It is not reasonable, balanced, or responsible to continue with the policies that caused this lost decade. Kansans need to support candidates who will vote in favor of economic freedom, which is the key to jobs and prosperity for Kansas. The Kansas Economic Freedom Index is a resource that voters can use to learn more about incumbent candidates and how they voted on issues of economic freedom.

    Kansas private sector job growth compared to other statesKansas private sector job growth compared to other states. Data is indexed, with January 2001 equal to 1. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

  • Wichita fails ethics test

    Yesterday Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and a majority of the Wichita City Council failed a test, showing that Wichita elected officials, except for one, aren’t interested in ethical behavior.

    The problem is worse than portrayed in a Wichita Eagle editorial, which commented on the appearance of the mayor’s and council’s action. In Wichita, we don’t have the mere appearance of a problem, we have an actual and real problem.

    The problem, in a nutshell, is that the mayor and all members of the city council except for Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) don’t see that’s a problem for them to award no-bid contracts to campaign contributors. They also don’t see that it’s wrong to preside over a hearing in a quasi-judicial manner and award contracts to a campaign contributor. See For Wichita government, an ethics tipping point and Wichita City Council can’t judge airport contract.

    In some states and cities, the routine action of the mayor and council members would be illegal. It ought to be illegal in Kansas. There was no discussion from the council bench about this, and none in the executive session council members took.

    Coincidentally, a group spoke during the public agenda portion of Tuesday’s council meeting about their concern for what they say is the corrupting influence of campaign money in politics.

    None of the group stayed to observe the city council provide a lesson in how most of Wichita’s elected officials willfully ignore the issues the group is concerned with. From the bench Vice Mayor Janet Miller (district 6, north central Wichita) spoke approvingly of the group’s cause. But last year Miller voted for a no-bid contract to be awarded to her campaign contributors, and she voted in Tuesday’s airport contract hearing.

    The behavior of Mayor Brewer and most members of the council gives new urgency for the Kansas Legislature to pass pay-to-play laws, which generally prohibit officeholders from voting on matters that financially benefit their campaign contributors. We can call it “Carl’s Law.” See Wichita and Kansas need pay-to-play laws.

    An example of a pay-to-play law is a charter provision of the city of Santa Ana, in Orange County, California, which states: “A councilmember shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to influence, a decision of the City Council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, apart from its effect on the public generally or a significant portion thereof, on a recent major campaign contributor.”

    Kansas has no such law. Certainly Wichita does not, where pay-to-play is seen by many citizens as a way of life — the Wichita way.

  • For Wichita government, an ethics tipping point

    Tomorrow Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and the Wichita City Council will make a decision that will let the city learn the ethics and character of its elected officials.

    The issue is whether the mayor and five of six council members will decide to preside in a quasi-judicial matter over a case involving a major campaign contributor and personal friend. Now we know that the mayor has also intervened on behalf of Key Construction, recommending exclusively that the firm be hired for a construction project.

    My reporting in Wichita City Council can’t judge airport contract details the campaign contributions made by executives of Key Construction and their spouses.

    On Sunday Bill Wilson of the Wichita Eagle reported on the letter Brewer sent to a retail store planning to build in Wichita. Key was the only construction company the mayor recommended. (Letter from mayor at center of construction bid controversy.)

    Wichita has shown it is willing to disregard the taxpayer in order to award out-sized profits to Key Construction. The most recent scheme — which didn’t pan out for Key — had the council willing to overspend by $1.3 million through a no-bid contract planned for Key. Only the action of council members Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) and Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) prevented the award of the no-bid contract and saved Wichita taxpayers $1.3 million.

    Despite this, Mayor Brewer wrote in his Key Construction recommendation letter: “Key is known for their consistent quality construction, budget control and on schedule delivery.”

    But in February, Wilson of the Eagle reported on “city-financed downtown parking garages that spiraled well over budget.” Continuing, Wilson wrote: “The most recent, the 2008 WaterWalk Place garage built by Key Construction, an original partner in the WaterWalk project, came in $1.5 million over budget at almost $8.5 million. That’s the biggest parking garage miss, according to figures from the city’s office of urban development, although the 2004 Old Town Cinema garage built by Key Construction came in almost $1 million over budget at $5.225 million.” (Wichita city manager proposes eliminating no-bid construction projects.)

    With a record like this, we have to wonder why Mayor Brewer would recommend Key Construction. Besides the campaign contributions and fishing trips, that is.

    The Wichita mayor’s behavior gives new urgency for the Kansas Legislature to pass pay-to-play laws, which generally prohibit officeholders from voting on matters that financially benefit their campaign contributors. We can call it “Carl’s Law.” See Wichita and Kansas need pay-to-play laws.

    Until such laws are in place, it is up to the personal judgment and character of the mayor and each city council member who has accepted campaign funds from Key Construction to decide whether they should act as judge in a case where Key is a party and stands to benefit financially. The decisions they make will let us know the future course for government ethics in Wichita. They either take a stand for good government, or fall farther into the morass of political cronyism.

  • Coalition Grades Kansas Legislators’ Support of Economic Freedom

    Americans for Prosperity–Kansas, Kansas Policy Institute, and Voice for Liberty in Wichita Partner to Inform Citizens

    Wichita — July 12, 2012 — A new scorecard released today takes a broad look at voting records and establishes how supportive state legislators were of economic freedom, limited government and individual liberty in the 2012 legislative session. The 2012 Kansas Economic Freedom Index is produced by Americans for Prosperity–Kansas, Voice for Liberty in Wichita, and Kansas Policy Institute.

    The Index is intended to provide educational information to the public about broad economic issues that are important to the citizens of our State. It is the product of nonpartisan analysis, study, and research and is not intended to directly or indirectly endorse or oppose any candidate for public office.

    The organizations that produced this first annual edition of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index do so in the belief that an informed citizenry is an essential element of maintaining a free society. Having a deeper understanding of how legislation impacts economic freedom and the constitutional principles of individual liberty and limited government allows citizens to better understand the known and often unknown consequences of legislative issues. The social and economic benefits of economic freedom have been widely studied by groups such as the Fraser Institute in Canada and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

    “Economic freedom is not a partisan issue,” said KPI president Dave Trabert. “Indeed, the 2012 Kansas Economic Freedom Index shows that quite clearly. There were 32 Republicans and 8 Democrats in the 2012 Senate; the House had 92 Republicans and 33 Democrats. Those counts would produce fairly strong results one way or the other if economic freedom was a partisan issue, but instead, the overall score of both chambers is very near neutral.”

    The Index is based on 24 House and 20 Senate votes. A vote in support of individual liberty, limited government and free markets received positive points; a vote opposed received negative points. Votes of Present or Not Voting (absent) were awarded zero points. A full list of the bills tracked and scores of the House and Senate are available at www.KansasPolicy.org/EconomicFreedomIndex.

    A positive cumulative score indicates that a legislator generally supported economic freedom, while a negative cumulative score indicates that a legislator generally opposed economic freedom. At the same time, the magnitude of both positive and negative scores generally indicates the degree to which a given legislator is supportive or opposed to economic freedom. A score of zero indicates that a legislator was generally neutral on economic freedom. The cumulative score only pertains to the specific votes included in the Kansas Economic Freedom Index and should not be interpreted otherwise. A different set of issues and/or a different set of circumstances could result in different cumulative scores.

    Bob Weeks, of Voice for Liberty in Wichita, started a version of this index after the 2010 legislative session and had this to say, “The value of a voting index is that it shines light on how lawmakers vote on important economic issues. It’s often hard for citizens to get a full understanding of the implications of a bill so this Index will hopefully provide a deeper understanding of economic freedom.”

    Derrick Sontag of Americans for Prosperity – Kansas offered, “The Kansas Economic Freedom Index is an important tool for Kansans who want to know if their state legislators follow through with promises to lower taxes, control government spending and protect individual liberties. This comprehensive measurement does a good job showing which legislators voted against key issues of limited government, free market ideals. Kansans clearly want a smaller, more efficient government and Kansas families and business owners deserve to know how legislators’ actions impact their economic freedom and individual liberty.”

  • Kansas Economic Freedom Index, 2012 Edition

    Today marks the release of the 2012 edition of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index. The Index examines votes made by members of the Kansas Legislature based on the impact the proposed legislation has on free markets and the constitutional principles of individual liberty and limited government. Based on their votes, legislators earn scores that illuminate their support of — or opposition to — these principles of economic freedom.

    The Kansas Economic Freedom Index is produced by Americans for Prosperity–Kansas, Kansas Policy Institute, and Voice for Liberty in Wichita. It is intended to provide educational information to the public about broad economic issues that are important to the citizens of our State. The Index is the product of nonpartisan analysis, study, and research and is not intended to directly or indirectly endorse or oppose any candidate for public office. Each partner organization operates independently and has its own distinct voice in advocating for free markets and supporting the constitutional principles of individual liberty and limited government.

    The Kansas Economic Freedom Index is hosted at two sites: KansasEconomicFreedom.com and Kansas Policy Institute.

    The value of a voting index is that it shines light on what lawmakers actually do, not what they say they do. Many of the votes included in the Kansas Economic Freedom index did not generate newspaper or television coverage, but collectively these votes let us know who are the champions of economic freedom and who are its enemies.

  • Looking for Senator Reasonable

    Below, Alan Cobb of Americans for Prosperity Foundation provides rebuttal to a recent op-ed by H. Edward Flentje of the Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs at Wichita State University. In his op-ed (Senate elections will shape state’s future, June 24, 2012 Wichita Eagle) Flentje explains his interpretation of the importance of eight Kansas Senate races where Republican incumbents have conservative challengers. These races will likely determine balance of power in the Senate, which has been controlled by a coalition of Democrats and left-leaning Republicans, usually called “moderate” Republicans. A version of this appeared in the Wichita Eagle.

    Looking for Senator Reasonable

    By Alan Cobb, Americans for Prosperity Foundation

    I’ve been looking for those reasonable Kansas state senators who occupy leadership positions that my friend Ed Flentje mentioned a few days ago in this paper. I looked and looked, but can’t find them.

    The Senate leadership I’ve seen for more than the last decade certainly isn’t opposed to tax increases, sometimes actively supporting them, and has done everything they can to thwart any kind of spending reform.

    Nearly every good piece of public policy that has passed the Kansas Legislature during this time frame has been despite Senate leadership efforts to stop it. This includes the nation’s first budget transparency act, which AFP worked hand-in-hand with the Kansas Press Association to pass, over strong objections and efforts to kill the bill by Republican leaders in the Senate

    I always smile when so-called “traditional” Kansas Republicans invoke the name of one of my heroes, Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower was hardly a moderate. He was the last President to oversee a true reduction of Federal spending. Over the last several decades, Kansas moderates treat spending increases as fait accompli and spending cuts as the end of the world as we know it. This is not how Eisenhower would have governed and this is not how he did govern.

    Senate leaders and those who have supported them have not exercised fiscal restraint as Dr. Flentje states, and to say so really strains credulity. Or in the vernacular I like to use, that dog don’t hunt.

    Since Steve Morris was elected Senate President in 2004, State General Fund spending has increased almost 31 percent while inflation during that same time period has been a little over 18 percent. Total Kansas government spending, including Federal contributions, has increased more than 39 percent. Though 2012 data isn’t available yet, population growth in Kansas from 2004 to 2011 has increased by a disappointing 4.5 percent.

    Most Kansans, including those of the traditional moderate Republican persuasion probably would not describe that as fiscal restraint.

    This group of moderate senators has not proposed alternatives and has simply made every effort to stop legislation supported by Gov. Brownback and other limited government, free market senators. As much as being so-called moderates, this group of senators has really been simply anti-conservative. It really isn’t much of an intellectual base for public policy.

    Those that support a different path for our State want something better for Kansans. Certainly those that support the status quo desire the same. The results of the status quo are known. We shall see the outcome of bold change

    I agree with Dr. Flentje that the results of August 7 could fundamentally change the future of Kansas. Under the current leadership that can be traced to Govs. Mike Hayden, Joan Finney, Bill Graves and Kathleen Sebelius, we’ve seen significant state budget growth, large state debt increase, state tax increases, sluggish economic growth and slow population growth. We have more people moving out of Kansas than moving in and those moving out are headed to states with a lower tax burden than Kansas.

    I don’t know about the rest of the state, but this Kansan does not think that is a path that we should continue.