Legislative Issues 2016

Transcription

1 Legislative Issues 2016 The 2016 Kansas Legislature convened Monday, January 11, The 2016 session runs for 90 days until approximately mid-april. The 2016 Legislative Session is the secondsession of the biennial legislature, so any bills introduced but not killed in the 2015 legislative session carry over and may be considered in 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, 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, 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 returns in on June 1, 2016 for adjournment sine die, thankfully and finally ridding the state of one of the worst legislature s in modern times. The following family law and related bills and concurrent resolutions are pending in the 2016 Kansas Legislature: 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: 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, The Senate did not pass the bill before turn-around Page 1 of 53

2 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, 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, The Governor signed the bill on May 9, The bill is effective July 1, 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) Page 2 of 53

3 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, The bill was passed out of Committee without amendment for Senate consideration on February 5, 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 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, 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 Page 3 of 53

4 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 )(See 2015HB2111) Education; 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, 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, The Senate Committee of the Whole passed the bill on to the full Senate by voice vote on March 10, 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 Page 4 of 53

5 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 (PASSED SENATE 40-0)(SUBSTITUTE PASSED HOUSE )(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 Page 5 of 53

6 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, 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, 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: Page 6 of 53

7 Alkali, Curtis, Frownfelter, Henderson, Highberger, Houston, Kuether, Ousley, Ruiz, Tie tze, Victors, Ward, Winn,Wolfe Moore, (Carlin, Edmonds, Suellentrop 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 Page 7 of 53

8 would apply with regard to elections of lawyer members of district judicial nominating commissions, except the relevant date would be November 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 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. Page 8 of 53

9 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: Barker, Barton, Boldra, Bradford, B. Carpenter, W. Carpenter, Claeys, Corbet, DeGraaf, Dove, Esau, Estes,Garber, Gonzalez, Grosserode, Hawkins, Hedke, Highland, Hildabrand, Hoffman, Houser, Huebert, Hutchins,Hutton, Johnson, D. Jones, K. Jones, Kahrs, Kiegerl, Kleeb, Lunn, Macheers, Mason, Mast, McPherson, Merrick,O Bri en, Osterman, R. Powell, Proehl, Rahjes, Read, Rhoades, Rubin, Ryckman, Ryckman Sr., Scapa, Schwartz,Seiwert, C. Smith, Suellentrop, Sutton, Thimesch, Vickrey, Weber, Whitmer Those voting NO were: Alford, Anthimides, Ballard, Becker, Billinger, Bollier, Burroughs, Campbell, Carlin, Car michael, Clark, Clayton,Concannon, Curtis, Dierks, Doll, Edmonds, Finch, Finney, Fran cis, Frownfelter, Gallagher, Helgerson, Henderson,Henry, Hibbard, Highberger, Hill, Hi neman, Houston, Jennings, Kelly, Kuether, Lewis, Lusk, Lusker, Moxley,Ousley, F. Patton, Pauls, Phillips, Rooker, Sawyer, Schroeder, Scott, Sloan, S. Swanson, Thompson, Tietze, Todd,Trimmer, Ward, Waymaster, Whipple, Wilson, Winn, Wolfe Moore Absent and not voting were: Page 9 of 53

10 Alcala, Bruchman, E. Davis, Ewy, Goico, Hemsley, Kelley, Peck, Ruiz, Schwab, Victors, K. 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: Alford, Anthimides, Barker, Barton, Bradford, Bruchman, B. Carpenter, W. Carpenter, Claeys, Corbet, E. Davis,DeGraaf, Dove, Esau, Estes, Francis, Garber, Gonzalez, Grosserode, Hawkins, H edke, Hemsley, Highland,Hildabrand, Hoffman, Houser, Huebert, Hutchins, Hutton, Je nnings, Johnson, D. Jones, K. Jones, Kahrs, Kelley,Kelly, Kiegerl, Kleeb, Lunn, Macheers, Mason, Mast, McPherson, Merrick, O Brien, Osterman, F. Patton, Pauls,Peck, R. Powell, Proehl, Rahjes, Read, Rhoades, Rubin, Ryckman, Ryckman Sr., Scapa, Schwab, Schwartz,Seiwert, C. Smith, Suellentrop, Sutton, Thimesch, Thompson, Todd, Vickrey, Waymaster, Weber, Whitmer, K. Williams, Those voting against the bill were: Alcala, Ballard, Becker, Billinger, Boldra, Bollier, Burroughs, Campbell, Carlin, Carmich ael, Clark, Clayton,Concannon, Curtis, Dierks, Doll, Finch, Finney, Frownfelter, Gallagh er, Helgerson, Henderson, Henry, Hibbard,Highberger, Hill, Hineman, Houston, Kuethe r, Lewis, Lusk, Lusker, Moxley, Ousley, Phillips, Rooker, Ruiz, Sawyer,Schroeder, Scott, Sloan, S. Swanson, Tietze, Trimmer, Victors, Ward, Whipple, Wilson, Winn, Wolfe Moore, Representatives Edmonds, Ewy, 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 Hawk, Pettey, and V. Schmidt voting against it) (Abrams and Francisco not voting). Page 10 of 53

11 The bill was enrolled and presented to Governor on Monday, May 09, The Governor signed this awful bill on May 16, 2016, making the bill effective July 1, 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 Page 11 of 53

12 custody of a child from the parent, or for the termination of parental rights without a specific showing that there is a causal relation between the actions and harm to the child is directly tied to concerns expressed in the last paragraph. The bill appears to be directly written to stop the state from stepping into a situation to treat a child who is not being adequately treated by a parent because that parent is following that parent s view of what is best for the child (supported by that parent s self-selected physician). The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which scheduled hearings for Tuesday, February 17, 2015, in Room 346-S at 3:30 p.m. The bill passed out of committee with a do pass recommendation. It was placed on General Orders for February 26, 2015 as the first bill for consideration by the Committee of the Whole. On February 26, 2015, the Senate passed the bill on Emergency Final Action by a vote of 38-2, with Senators Longbine, Schmidt voting NO. The bill was the submitted for consideration in the House, where it was assigned to the House Committee on Judiciary. The bill was scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N. Ronald W. Nelson presented written testimony in opposition to the bill. The bill passed out of committee March 19, 2015, with Chairman Barker breaking a tie-vote. On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, the bill was stricken from the Calendar because it had not been voted on before second-house turn-around. But on Monday, March 30, 2015, the House-Senate Judiciary Conference Committee met for the first time after second-house turn-around to attempt to resolve differences on conferenceable bill (bills that have passed at least one house). During those discussions, Judiciary Conference Committee members discussed trying to bundle four child-related bills: SB133 (immunity from criminal prosecution for possession of alcohol by minor seeking medical assistance for another), SB157, SB159 ( custody powers of attorney) and HB2336 (risk assessment tools for juvenile detention facility placement) in certain juvenile cases (of which only HB2336 had passed both houses). 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) Page 12 of 53

13 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 sevenyears. 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, 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 Page 13 of 53

14 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, During debate, Senator Pilcher-Cook moved to amend the bill by inserting the entire text of SB148, the Safe Families Act, which had been heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 9, 2015 and worked and passed out of committee with a favorable recommendation on February 19, 2015 (also introduced, heard, and worked in the House as HB2244). Senator Pettey raised a question of germaneness; the question of germaneness was overruled. The Senate Committee of the Whole adopted the amendment on a voice vote. The Senate then voted passing the amended bill 30-4, with Senators Faust-Goudeau, Haley, Hensley, and Holland voting NO. (Senators Francisco, Hawk, McGinn, O Donnell, Pettey, and Wolf were absent and did not vote). When the bill was introduced into the House, it was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The amended bill was scheduled for hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N. Ronald W. Nelson presented written testimony in opposition to the bill. The bill did not make it out of committee before second-house turn-around. On Monday, March 30, 2015, however, the House-Senate Judiciary Conference Committee met for the first time after second-house turn-around and discussed trying to bundle four child-related bills together, even though SB159 had not made it out of House Committee: SB133 (immunity from criminal prosecution for possession Page 14 of 53

15 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 Page 15 of 53

16 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, The Senate Committee of the Whole adopted amendments limiting the purpose for which a nominating commission may recess for a closed or executive meeting, clarifying that the KOMA provisions do not supersede a nominating commission s discretion in closing a record or portion of a record pursuant to any applicable KORA exception (by Senator King), and requiring the disclosure of the names and cities of residence of all applicants for the Court of Appeals (which the governor has steadfastly refused to open to anyone). On Emergency Final Action, the Senate passed the bill 35-4, with Senators Arpke, Haley, Holland, and Pettey voting NO. (Senator Francisco was present, but did not vote). The bill was introduced into the House on February 26, 2015, assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill was scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 3:30 pm in Room 112-N. 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 Page 16 of 53

17 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, Page 17 of 53

18 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, The Judiciary Committee recommended passage of the bill (as introduced) on March 19, 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 Page 18 of 53

19 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, The Governor signed the bill the next day, May 10, 2016, making the bill effective July 1, 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 Page 19 of 53

20 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 Page 20 of 53