While talking to my mom the other day, she mentioned this flyer that was left on her door. She wasn’t sure what it was about and asked me to look into it.
When taking a closer look at the flyer, the first thing I noticed was who paid for it. Americans for Prosperity (I refuse to link to their site). AFP, as anyone who pays attention knows, was founded and is funded by the Koch Brothers. AFP and the Kochs were some of the biggest supporters of Citizens United. The SCOTUS ruling which allowed virtually unlimited and dark money to infect our political processes.
David and Charles Koch are two of the biggest walking pieces of shit on the face of the planet. If I had looked no further into HCR 5014, this would be enough to oppose it.
Listen Up Kansas! Vote NO on HCR 5014!
But I did and found the text of the resolution pretty easily. House Concurrent Resolution 5014 proposes an amendment to the Kansas State Constitution. You can see the actual resolution below, but here’s the substance:
“§ 17. Legislative oversight of administrative rules and regulations. Whenever the legislature by law has authorized any officer or agency within the executive branch of government to adopt rules and regulations that have the force and effect of law, the legislature may provide by law for the revocation or suspension of any such rule and regulation, or any portion thereof, upon a vote of a majority of the members then elected or appointed and qualified in each house.”
Sec. 2. The following statement shall be printed on the ballot with the amendment as a whole:
“Explanatory statement. The purpose of this amendment is to provide the legislature with oversight of state executive branch agencies and officials by providing the legislature authority to establish procedures to revoke or suspend rules and regulations.
“A vote for this proposition would allow the legislature to establish procedures to revoke or suspend rules and regulations that are adopted by state executive branch agencies and officials that have the force and effect of law.
“A vote against this proposition would allow state executive branch agencies and officials to continue adopting rules and regulations that have the force and effect of law without any opportunity for the legislature to directly revoke or suspend such rules and regulations.”
Where Are the Progressive or Good-Government Groups in Kansas?
The resolution received NO testimony in opposition in the hearing before the House Committee on Judiciary. For the Senate Judiciary hearing, it only received three testimonies in opposition. From the League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, and one individual.
I strongly urge you to read these testimonies.
I don’t think a resolution like this would ever be contemplated in Hawaii. But if it were, there would certainly fierce and loud opposition to it. In Kansas, though, there was little more than a peep.
This is a dramatic, if unsurprising and hypocritical, overreach by the GOP-dominated Kansas Legislature.
This resolution and proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution is egregious and wholly unnecessary. As the League of Women Voters stated in their testimony:
Currently, when the Kansas Legislature approves a law which instructs the executive branch to develop rules and regulations, there are a number of checks. The suggested rules are checked by the Division of Budget for fiscal impact. Then the Attorney General determines if there are constitutional issues. Then thirdly, the Secretary of State’s office checks for technical and approved form. After these three steps are completed, the proposed rules and regulations are put into the Kansas Register and a required public hearing is set for final adoption.
These steps assure that all avenues are checked for cost, legal correctness and technical form. If the Legislature feels that the proposed rules do not meet the intent of the legislation, then the Legislature can pass a replacement law that more clearly states the intention of the legislature.
Vote NO! Tell Your Friends and Family
Currently, the Kansas Governor is a Democrat. So it’s easy to see why the dim and spiteful Republicans would take this action. If the current Governor were a member of their own party, no such legislation would have been passed, let alone contemplated.
The final votes were incredibly lopsided along party lines. However, it should be noted there are four Republicans who put their duty above party and voted against the resolution. They should be applauded!
As a Democrat and strong progressive leftist, I can acknowledge and appreciate there are many different ideas about our government. And the role it should play in our lives. But this proposed Constitutional Amendment isn’t about that. It’s a power grab by Republicans unhappy the Governor’s Office is occupied by a Democrat.
If you believe in appropriate checks and balances. If you believe in the rule of law. And if you believe our elected leaders should put responsible governing above petty political squabbles, vote NO on this in November.
Though I haven’t lived in Kansas in more than two decades, part of me still considers it my “home” state. I have family and friends who still live there and it is for their benefit that I implore you to vote against this dangerous amendment to Kansas’ Constitution. And if you agree with me, please urge everyone you know to vote likewise. Feel free to share this with everyone you know.
There’s nothing about this proposed Con-Am that will benefit anyone other than big corporations that would love to see sensible and reasonable regulations and rules eviscerated. And they’re not above playing party politics to get it done.
Listen Up Kansas! Vote NO on HCR 5014!
Wow, you wrote a whole post about voting no on an constitutional amendment that limits government overreach, without providing any evidence, support your position. Support your position.
Could you elaborate more why they want this amendment? What I am seeing is by your account this bill would supersede the Constitution by Law…
Bob,
Thanks for the comment.
I don’t believe this proposed constitutional amendment is about government overreach at all. Rather this is about Republicans in the Legislature wanting more control over the executive branch. My argument is basically that the proposed constitutional amendment is an overreach by one governmental branch over another. The legislature currently has fairly significant authority over executive agencies by the drafting and passing of laws dictating how those agencies function. This proposed constitutional amendment would allow the legislature to have final say over rulemaking that, as I say in the post, already has extensive processes in place for feed back from the public, etc. I see this as little more than an overt power grab by an GOP-dominated legislature against a Democratic-controlled executive branch.
Sometimes political posturing must be set aside for the good of actual governing. The two-party, three-branch governmental systems were established as reasonable checks and balances against one another. When either party dominates too completely, there is the potential for harm and political overreach. I believe that what’s happening with this proposed constitutional amendment.
Birdie,
Thanks for your comment.
The explanatory statement in the resolution posing the amendment says this: “The purpose of this amendment is to provide the legislature with oversight of state executive branch agencies and officials by providing the legislature authority to establish procedures to revoke or suspend rules and regulations.”
My position in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment is that it is unnecessary, as the legislature already has wide authority to pass laws that direct executive agencies. I believe this is unnecessary, a serious legislative overreach, and a dangerous erroding of the separation of power between the three branches of government meant to work in balance. Nonpartisan good-government groups, like the League of Women Voters have pointed out that the existing process for executive agency rulemaking already has significant safeguards and checks and allows for public input.
This proposed constitutional amendment seems wholly unnecessary when viewed through that lens.
This wouldn’t “supersede” the Kansas Constitution, per se, because it would be amended. Should the constitutional amendment pass, the legislature, currently controlled by Republicans, would have potentially unlimited authority over executive agencies currently directed by a Democratic Governor. I understand the constant power struggle between these two political parties, but sometimes in their eagerness to rule, politicians forsake the foundational importance of the separation of powers engrained in our governmental systems and the critical importance of checks and balances, which I believe this proposed constitutional amendment would seriously imperil.
I read your post. You have not lived in Kansas for 20 years, you live in Hawaii. I have lived in Kansas 60 years and STILL call it home. HCR 5014 gives voice back to the people through our elected officials, instead of unelected bureaucrats who make whatever regulations they want. As for me, my family, friends and neighbors we will vote YES.
I agree Pecan! I believe this Amendment is about no longer allowing unelected officials, like the head of the health department, to make rules and regulations that the legislators can’t question. Josh, sounds like you’d encourage your mother to vote yes if this were a Democratic heavy legislature. It’s all about who’s in power, eh? I’ve lived in KS for over 30 years. My family will proudly vote yes on this Amendment.
Jessica,
Thanks for the comment.
I would, in fact, NOT vote for this amendment regardless of which controls the Legislature or the Governor’s Office. I believe, as I said in my post and in response to other comments, this is a gross over-reach by the legislature. Separation of powers is not only necessary, but also constitutional. It sounds like YOU support this amendment because you don’t like the Governor. Regardess, Governor Kelly was elected by a majority of voters in Kansas. She was elected to run the Executive Branch, including appointing directors of departments who make rules.
The legislature has the authority to make laws to direct departments to do (or not) just about anything. They don’t like a rule? Fine. They have the authority NOW to change the law accordingly.
It sounds to me like you need a refresher course on government and basic civics.
What’s wrong? The sad liberal doesn’t want the people to have a say in things?
Way too many “departments” have authority to make changes(good or bad) without legislatures oversight. And this would stop it! This means our ELECTED leaders are the ones making the final decision before any changes are made. That doesn’t sound like overreach to me. It does sound like how a democractic REPUBLIC is suppose to run. We elect member to state and federal offices to represent us. And bureaucratic departments should not be able to do anything with out the say of those elected members. Vote YES!