‘Nerves and adrenalin’ as Kansas congressional redistricting trial begins

Mark Johnson, left, an attorney for voters who sued over the new congressional map, left the Wyandotte County District Court following opening arguments Monday morning in Kansas City, Kansas. (Photo by Sherman Smith, Kansas Reflector)

by Sherman Smith, Kansas Reflector

As Wyandotte County District Judge Bill Klapper wandered into his overflowing courtroom Monday before the start of a high-profile redistricting trial, he asked court observers and attorneys if they ever go to horse races.

Right before they start, Klapper said, the atmosphere is “all nerves and adrenalin.”

“The palpable energy in this room right now is just fantastic,” Klapper said.

On one side of the room: An army of liberal attorneys representing voters in three separate cases. They contend the GOP-dominated Legislature ignored redistricting guidelines and public comments to draw new congressional boundaries that favor Republicans.

The other side: Attorneys hired by the state of Kansas to defend Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Wyandotte County election commissioner Michael Abbott, whose names appear on the lawsuit as a formality because of the offices they hold. These attorneys argue the Legislature merely exercised discretion in adapting boundaries to account for a decade of population growth in Johnson County.

At issue: A map known as Ad Astra 2 splits the Kansas City metro area along Interstate 70, separating the heavily Democratic northern part of Wyandotte County from Johnson County and the 3rd District, and places Lawrence into the same 1st District as rural counties that border Colorado, about 385 miles west of the college town.

A map produced by Republicans in the House and Senate would place Lawrence in the 1st District, which stretches to the Colorado border, and split Wyandotte County between 2nd and 3rd districts. (Submitted)

The Kansas Supreme Court tasked Klapper with hearing a novel legal challenge about whether the Kansas Constitution contains protections against dividing communities of color and partisan gerrymandering. They are treading new ground because a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2019 determined federal courts should have no say on the topic, upending decades of precedent.

Abha Khanna, an attorney for the D.C.-based Elias Law Group, said in opening arguments that Republicans “used the redistricting process as a power grab” designed to silence Democrats and minority voters in increasingly competitive areas of the state.

GOP leaders relied on “unprecedented and abusive tactics” to twist every arm needed to override a veto of the congressional map by Gov. Laura Kelly, Khanna said, after systemically dividing young voters and people of color so they would not have their voices heard.

Khanna said public comments by former Senate President Susan Wagle in September 2020, when Wagle outlined how Republicans could draw congressional districts to ensure four Republicans were sent to Congress, were evidence that Ad Astra 2 was designed to maximize partisan gains.

The “equal protection” clause on the state constitution doesn’t allow legislators to target Democratic voters or take voting power away, Khanna said.

Tony Rupp, an attorney representing the state, said Wagle wasn’t even a member of the Legislature when the redistricting process started in 2021. And even experts hired by plaintiffs in the case have produced voting projections that show U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids, the only Democrat from Kansas in Congress, has a 62% chance of hanging onto her 3rd District seat.

If the idea was to pack districts with Republican voters, Rupp said, the Legislature could have done so more efficiently. He also pointed out that Republicans have won 19 of 21 congressional races, including one special election, based on the existing map.

The census showed a 78,000 population increase in Johnson County. As a result, Rupp said, there are too many people to keep all of Johnson and Wyandotte counties together in a single district. Rupp said voters elected legislators to make decisions for them, and those legislators chose to keep Johnson County intact.

Rupp asked Klapper, the judge, to “stay out of the political thicket, and do not disenfranchise the elected representatives.”

Another attorney for the state, Gary Ayers, unsuccessfully tried to persuade Klapper to block “expert” witnesses from testifying in favor of the voters who sued.

Ayers argued there is no standard in state law or constitution for the redistricting of maps. A “community of interest” can’t be measured, Ayers said.

Ayers also asserted that the relocation of Black and Latino voters wasn’t the real issue with redrawn congressional boundaries.

“The plaintiffs don’t like the type of white voters they have in the district, and they don’t know how to quantify that,” Ayers said.

The trial is expected to last up to two weeks. Klapper’s ruling is expected to be appealed, regardless of his decision.

The Legislature last week passed an additional set of maps that redraw Senate and House districts, as well as the state board of education seats. Gov. Kelly has yet to veto or sign that legislation, which also could be subject to legal challenges.

Kansas Reflector stories, www.kansasreflector.com, may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
See more at https://kansasreflector.com/2022/04/04/nerves-and-adrenalin-as-kansas-congressional-redistricting-trial-begins/
.

Kansas Statehouse subpoenas, pay-to-play allegations, consultants’ feud disrupt end of session

Splintering of prominent conservative political firm lights short fuse

by Tim Carpenter, Kansas Reflector

Topeka — The Kansas Legislature’s end-of-session avalanche of votes was disrupted by an abrupt attempt to force out the state ethics commission’s executive director, allegations of a pay-to-play Medicaid maneuver and fallout from an unusual lawsuit pitting Republican political consultants against each other.

Action under the dome before adjournment early Saturday included Republican lawmakers’ surprise attempt to write into state law a requirement the executive director of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission hold a Kansas license to practice law. The target of their ire was executive director Mark Skoglund, the top regulator of legislators’ campaign finance activities who fell out of favor among some Republicans.

The final hours also featured disclosure the ethics commission issued subpoenas to GOP legislators and political operatives, including the Kansas Chamber, as part of an investigation into political action committees tied to conservative causes and legislators.

The subpoenas seek documentation of written exchanges with PACs and individuals, potentially in search of evidence PACs coordinated with campaigns. There is bipartisan dread the subpoenas were a consequence of a lawsuit and bitter end of the long partnership of Singularis Group founders Kristian Van Meteren and Jared Suhn, who specialize in serving Republicans.

House Speaker Ron Ryckman, who didn’t talk about how many of his GOP colleagues received subpoenas, said the Kansas Constitution made clear legislators couldn’t be subjected to the civil legal process during the legislative session. In other words, the ethics commission had no business sending subpoenas to House members while they were performing their official duties.

“There’s no way any member could be lawfully subpoenaed by the ethics commission at this time,” Ryckman said.

Attorneys Ryan Kriegshauser and Joshua Ney, who represent Suhn in the dispute with Van Meteren, accused the ethics commission’s executive director of misrepresenting his legal credentials in a separate campaign finance case involving a mayoral race in Johnson County.

GOP lawmakers proposed a law be passed requiring the commission’s executive director to have a valid law license. Ney, who also represents the Johnson County residents in hot water with the ethics commission, filed a document that said the law license of the commission’s director, Skoglund, expired years ago. During a recent hearing on the Johnson County case, Skoglund didn’t immediately correct for the record a statement that he had a Kansas license in good standing.

Senate President Ty Masterson said the must-be-an-attorney reform was necessary because Skoglund had essentially “weaponized” the regulatory body responsible for enforcing ethics and campaign law. Lawmakers have complained Skoglund’s work on subpoenas was initiated after the Legislature declined to show interest in Skoglund’s reform legislation.

‘Deeply concerning’

On Friday, six members of the state ethics commission said in a joint statement the partisan attempt to change hiring requirements of the executive director was motivated by an unwarranted desire to get Skoglund fired.

It’s a move that commissioners said ought to be “deeply concerning” to Kansans.

“We wholly support executive director Skoglund and staunchly oppose this effort to undermine the governmental ethics commission,” commissioners said.

Much remains unknown about the Kansas political firestorm related to subpoenas, lobbying activity, campaign finance expenditures, the ethics commission and the lawsuit.

But the Van Meteren and Suhn dispute offers a glimpse at how conflict can spiral out of control when money, ego and revenge delved into legal and political proceedings.

The lawsuit began when Van Meteren bought out Suhn in 2019 following contentious negotiations. Van Meteren subsequently alleged Suhn violated a noncompete clause in their agreement. Suhn had established a new firm, Game Changer Strategies. Van Meteren insisted his former business partner recruited clients that had business relationships with Singularis.

In effect, the work of Suhn for influential clients could leave Van Meteren with a less-valuable company, which has emphasized direct mail work for GOP candidates and organizations.

“I will not sign onto any agreement that does not include an ironclad noncompete for the firm’s graphic design, print, mail and digital lines of business and an equally ironclad non-solicit for the firm’s clients, staff and vendors,” Van Meteren said in an email to Suhn before the deal was struck.

“I will not negotiate with someone who continually moves the goalposts and tries to leave 40 windows unlocked so he can come back and steal back what I would be buying from him. Only a fool would buy a car and let the seller keep a set of keys,” Van Meteren said.

After departing Singularis in September 2019, Suhn was hired in October 2019 by the Republican House Campaign Committee to perform political consulting in the 2020 election cycle. In 2021, Van Meteren filed suit against Suhn. The case has yet to be resolved in district court.

‘Very unnerving’

During a House-Senate conference committee meeting, Rep. Vic Miller, D-Topeka, challenged on procedural and policy grounds a GOP recommendation to insert into a bill the prohibition against employing an ethics commission executive director without a law license in good standing. Under the proposal, the individual would need to have had a license for three years as of July 1.

Skoglund said his license was suspended since 2015 because he chose not to keep up with continuing education requirements. He’s held the job since 2017.

Miller said it was against the Legislature’s rules to fold into a House-Senate conference report the executive director reform language because the issue had never before properly considered by the House or Senate.

He said consideration of the idea amid reports of legislators being subpoenaed by the ethics commission made the proposal appear shady.

“I’ve been hearing rumors now for the better part of probably a month that there are some 30 subpoenas issued to elected members. I find it very unnerving, to say the least,” Miller said. “I will say there are rumors; I have no facts. But there are significant enough rumors that relate directly to the underlying concept of this legislation that I bring it up. The timing is wrong for a matter of this kind of significance. But I particularly think this proposal, the timing is all wrong, given what I’ve been hearing.”

Pay-to-play accusation

On Thursday and Friday, a sharp-tongued Democrat alleged an underhanded campaign-donation scheme to gain traction for controversial Medicaid legislation. The bill would block Gov. Laura Kelly from renegotiating the $4 billion contract with managed-care companies unless she won re-election in November.

Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, objected to a proposal offered by Sen. Kelli Warren, a Republican candidate for attorney general, to put into law a prohibition on rebidding the contract until early 2023.

Kelly is seeking reelection and the current attorney general, Derek Schmidt, is the presumptive GOP nominee for governor.

Carmichael made reference to an FBI inquiry into the KanCare contract decisions nearly 10 years ago during the administration of Gov. Sam Brownback. There were assertions then that Brownback loyalists engaged in a pay-to-play operation during selection of three contractors for a Medicaid program now serving about 500,000 elderly, disabled and low-income Kansans. That federal investigation didn’t result in indictments.

Carmichael suggested history could be repeating itself.

“Sadly,” Carmichael said, “the same rumors are circulating today that there are subpoenas flying around in this Statehouse. It is a violation of federal law for lobbyists to induce legislators to introduce legislation concerning the Medicaid program with promises of campaign contributions.”

He said it was implausible anyone would hand KanCare companies a no-bid, $4 billion contract extension unless “somebody’s palm was getting greased by lobbyists with money.”

Warren, sitting across the room from Carmichael, didn’t comment on the representative’s outburst. Rep. Brad Ralph, R-Dodge City, said he was compelled to respond to Carmichael.

“I think it’s incredibly reckless to discuss pay-to-play or cast aspersions in regard to peoples’ motivation, particularly in this room,” Ralph said. “Personally, I take offense to that.”

Carmichael wasn’t through. While offering no proof of his claim, the Democrat said he had circumstantial evidence the pay-to-play was being conducted at “a higher level” than legislators. He said House and Senate members were being used as “pawns.”

“You should not expect a retraction from this representative,” Carmichael said.

Kansas Reflector stories, www.kansasreflector.com, may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
See more at https://kansasreflector.com/2022/04/03/kansas-statehouse-subpoenas-pay-to-play-allegations-consultants-feud-disrupt-end-of-session/
.

Kansas sports wagering bill earmarks 80% of state revenue to pro sports stadium

House passes legislation, but Senate adjourns without voting on bill

by Tim Carpenter, Kansas Reflector

Topeka — The Kansas House passed a bill allowing casinos to operate sports betting operations and to earmark 80% of state tax revenue from the new gaming business to a special fund for financing of a professional sports facility.

The Kansas Senate didn’t take up the sports wagering legislation before adjourning until April 25 for the wrap-up portion of the session.

After five years of wrangling on the issue, the House pushed Senate Bill 84 across the finish line Friday night with a surprise amendment dedicating a majority of state revenue from online and in-person betting on sports to bonds for construction, renovation or expansion of sports facilities. The state’s four casinos — established under control of the Kansas Lottery — would operate the sports books.

The stadium provision was slipped into the package negotiated by three House and three Senate members at the request of House leadership. The decision coincided with comments by executives from the Kansas City Chiefs about evaluation of proposals to build an NFL stadium on the Kansas side of the state line with Missouri. Gov. Laura Kelly, in an interview, said she’d welcome the Chiefs to Kansas.

Sporting Kansas City, a team in the MLS, has a stadium in Wyandotte County.

“If we could add another team, that would be great,” said Rep. John Barker, the Abilene Republican and chief negotiator for the House on sports wagering.

In the House, the bill survived an attempt to inhibit passage by sending it back to a committee. It finally cleared the House on a 63-49 vote.

“This was truly a work of compromise of the House and Senate,” said Rep. Louis Ruiz, a Democrat from Kansas City, Kansas. “It’s something we’ve been wanting for a long time.”

Opposition came from representatives skeptical of handing spending authority of the professional sports fund to the Legislative Coordinating Council, which is a mixture of House and Senate leaders from both political parties. Other lawmakers objected on philosophical, moral or financial grounds.

“There is no reason we turn it over to the finance council, who hadn’t told us about it until it came up in the last few minutes of the last day of the session,” said Rep. Henry Helgerson, D-Wichita.

Rep. Francis Awerkamp, a Republican from St. Marys, said he was troubled by state government’s eagerness to encourage sports betting to Kansas.

“From my perspective, this is written for the casinos, by the casinos and of the casinos. Everything in it is a sweetheart deal for them,” he said.

Rep. Steve Howe, R-Salina, said he opposed expansion of gambling in Kansas because it would encourage “sins of greed” and would potentially facilitate addictive behavior damaging to the welfare of families and communities.

The 10% tax on sports wagering revenue in the Kansas bill was paltry compared to tax rates on casino sports book betting in New York at 51%, Pennsylvania at 36%, Tennessee and Arkansas at 20% and Maryland at 15%, said Rep. Paul Waggoner, R-Hutchinson.

“Great for casinos. Bad for taxpayers,” Waggoner said. “Our goal as a Legislature should be to make a good deal for the voters. We’re not here for casinos. We’re not here for the lobbyists. This bill should be rejected.”

The original estimate of annual revenue from sports betting in Kansas indicated the state could collect $1.8 million in 2023, $6 million in 2024 and reach $10 million in 2025.

“This doesn’t pass, Kansas gets nothing,” said Rep. Ken Corbet, R-Topeka. “We need to find some way to make some money.”

Rep. Brett Fairchild, R-St. John, said the ideal approach would be to abandon state-operated gambling operations and let companies or individuals open private casinos. He said he supported the bill because allowing people to voluntary gamble on sports under a system regulated by the state was “better for the cause of liberty than prohibiting gambling all together.”

Under the bill, the Kansas Lottery and the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission would share oversight of sports wagering conducted through the four state-owned casinos. Each casino could operate up to three online sports wagering platforms. The bill would require state background investigation of platforms preferred by the casinos to begin by Aug. 15. Rules and regulations for advertising of sports betting would be in place by Jan. 1, 2023.

Betters on the casinos’ platforms would have to be physically located in Kansas to submit a wager. The casinos could enter marketing agreements with professional sports teams, including placement of kiosks at the team’s facility to allow fans to place bets.

The casinos could enter marketing agreements with 50 businesses and entities, with one-fifth of the total reserved for nonprofit organizations. Sports gamblers involved in state-sanctioned betting would have to be 21 years old.

The proposed law would require $750,000 annually in state gambling tax revenue be diverted to the White Collar Crime Fund. In addition, 2% of state revenue from sports betting would go to the Problem Gambling and Addiction Grant Fund.

The remainder would be funneled to the Attracting Professional Sports to Kansas Fund. The State Finance Council could pledge all or part of the fund to pay principal or interest of any bond issued by the state or a municipality for construction, rehabilitation or expansion of a professional sports team’s primary facility or a related development at that primary facility.

The bill would enable any federally recognized Native American tribe to submit a request to the Kansas governor and Kansas Lottery director to operate a sports book “under the substantially same terms and conditions” that were applied to the state’s four casinos.

In addition, the legislation adopted by the House authorized wagering exclusively in Sedgwick County on “historical” horse races. Other states offering this form of gambling rely on video of thousands of past races that enable gamblers to place bets on the outcome. Operators could install no more than 1,000 horse-race machines. Bets on these races couldn’t be placed over the internet or by cellular telephone. This type of gambling wouldn’t be allowed at facilities offering live or simulcast greyhound races.

Kansas Reflector stories, www.kansasreflector.com, may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
See more at https://kansasreflector.com/2022/04/02/kansas-sports-wagering-bill-earmarks-80-of-state-revenue-to-pro-sports-stadium/
.