Legislative update from Rep. Pam Curtis

Committees busy last week in Legislature

Opinion column

Rep. Pam Curtis

by Rep. Pam Curtis, D-32nd Dist.

We had a light week on the floor after returning from a four-day turnaround break, but committtees were quite busy last week in the Legislature.

The week started with a legislative coup in the House Committee on Water, and #AxeTheFoodTax caused division in the House Committee on Taxation.

As news about Ukraine continued to flood the airwaves, legislators donned Ukraine flags on their lapels. Last week closed out with a rally where community members and legislators listened to speeches from Ukrainian exchange students.

Read my complete update from Week 8 in the Kansas Legislature at https://www.curtisforkck.com/2022-legislative-update-8.

Each of my weekly updates is available at curtisforkck.com/blog.

Take the 2022 Legislature Survey if you haven’t already at https://www.curtisforkck.com/2022survey. We will soon be voting on these important issues in the Legislature, and your opinion matters to me.

It is a special honor to serve as your state representative. I value and appreciate your input on issues facing state government. Please feel free to contact me with your comments and questions.

My office address is Room 452-S, 300 SW 10th, Topeka, KS 66612. You can reach me at (785) 296-7430 or call the legislative hotline at +1 (800) 432-3924?link_id=10&can_id=023d31edc122894f23632d826d9946f5&source=email-week-3-update-from-the-legislature-3&email_referrer=email_1468629___from_1923882&email_subject=update-from-the-legislature 432-3924 to leave a message for me.

Tax credit bundle promoting housing, aerospace, education gets preliminary Kansas Senate nod

by Noah Taborda, Kansas Reflector

Topeka — The Kansas Senate gave the tentative green light Thursday to a massive bundle of tax credit incentives for aerospace and aviation programs, housing investments, teacher supplies and income tax while declining to provide a $250 rebate to all Kansans.

Senate Bill 282 began the debate as a tax credit estimated to cost the state $7.9 million by allowing employers in the aviation industry to write off tuition costs or certain program fees for a qualified employee beginning in 2023. Employees would be a graduate of an accredited engineering program, or an associate of an applied science degree program or a career technical program.

This credit would be capped at 50% of the tuition reimbursement paid and could be claimed each year, for up to the fourth year of employment.

The bill would also create a nonrefundable tax credit for taxpayers equal to 10% of the compensation paid to qualified employees in each of their first five years of employment, not to exceed $15,000 per year.

Sen. Gene Suellentrop, R-Wichita, said the measure was important to bring Kansas level with Oklahoma, which has been pushing aerospace development.

“If we’re not careful, they can take a good part of McConnell Air Force Base and our entire aviation production and haul it down south in a very short order,” Suellentrop said. “Their governor has worked with their legislature to create similar tax credit programs. So, this is not something new. This is used in the industry.”

Additionally, the bill would create a nonrefundable tax credit for taxpayers who become qualified employees during the year. Employees with income tax liability less than $5,000 would be eligible to carry any unused credit forward for up to four years.

Several other legislators piggybacked on the tax credit, proposing ideas of their own. Sen. Robert Olson, R-Olathe, brought a pair of housing tax credits and tacked them on with Senate approval.

The main credit, established in the Kansas Housing Investor Tax Credit Act, would allow any financial institution, project builder and developer who makes cash investment in some housing projects to claim a tax credit.

Under the act, the director of the Kansas Housing Resource Corporation can issue credits up to $35,000 per residential unit in a county with a population no more than 8,000; up to $32,000 per unit in a county with a population greater than 8,000 but not more than 25,000; and up to $30,000 per resident for all other qualified housing projects.

Sen. Jeff Pittman, D-Leavenworth, said he was concerned it did not include areas of high growth in northeast Kansas but still supported the measure.

“We need new housing in the state of Kansas, we need workforce development, and we need affordable housing in our counties out there across the state,” Pittman said.

Sen. Alicia Straub, R-Ellinwood, saw other issues in her area, like senior citizens on a fixed income struggling to afford the homes they have owned for years because of high taxes.

“I would support a reduction in taxes for all Kansas residents, not just picking winners and losers with builders and certain developments,” Straub said.

The only amendment to fail was an offer from Senate Minority Leader Dinah Sykes to include a $250 tax rebate for all single filers and $500 for married Kansas residents. The idea is part of the governor’s proposed budget.

Sen. Caryn Tyson, R-Parker, shut down the amendment quickly.

“It may sound good on the surface, but this is not the way to promote economic development or good sound tax policy,” Tyson said. “We’ve seen that behavior at the federal level. It was not the results that we would have liked to have seen.”

Another amendment adds another option to the Homestead Property Tax Act for Kansans aged 65 years or older or disabled veterans.

The final amendment, introduced by Sen. Virgil Peck, R-Havana, would increase the amount of the residential exemption of the 20-mill property tax levy from $20,000 of valuation to $65,000. It would also allow that amount to increase in future years.

The amendment drew some worry from Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, about the impact this may have on the school finance formula.

“My concern is there would be less property tax available so more of that funding would come from our state general fund than from the property taxes collected,” Francisco said. “I would just hope before I voted on this that I would have a better understanding of those numbers.”

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/2022/03/07/tax-credit-bundle-promoting-housing-aerospace-education-gets-preliminary-kansas-senate-nod/

Kansas Supreme Court denies AG’s mandamus petition in redistricting case

A map of Congressional districts in Kansas has split Wyandotte County, and is the subject of a court case. The Kansas Supreme Court today ruled that it would not dismiss two pending lawsuits from Wyandotte County and one from Douglas County challenging the map.

The Kansas Supreme Court today denied Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s petition for mandamus and quo warranto relief in a redistricting case.

The attorney general had asked the Kansas courts to dismiss two pending lawsuits filed in Wyandotte County District Court and a third lawsuit filed in Douglas County over redistricting.

The lawsuits alleged that the Congressional reapportionment map passed by the Kansas Legislature was impermissibly gerrymandered and violated the Kansas Constitution.

The Supreme Court held today that mandamus and quo warranto were not appropriate remedies because the district judges below had not violated any clear legal duty nor were they unlawfully asserting authority by hearing the cases.

Also, the court clarified that if an action does not lie in mandamus or quo warranto, the petition must be denied.

The Supreme Court stated that it has no discretion to reach the merits of such a claim simply because the question presented is one of statewide importance, significant public concern, or there is a compelling need for an expeditious and authoritative legal ruling on an important legal question.

The lawsuits filed had named Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Wyandotte County Election Commissioner Michael Abbott as the defendants.

The two Wyandotte County cases were filed Feb. 14, and the Douglas County case was filed March 1. Attorney General Schmidt filed a response seeking dismissal on Feb. 18, and an amended petition on March 3.

In addition to the gerrymandering allegations, the plaintiffs’ lawsuits claimed the Kansas Legislature racially gerrymandered the districts to intentionally dilute the minority vote.

Writing for the majority, Justice Caleb Stegall stated that they realize time is of the essence, with the filing deadline June 1 and the primary election scheduled Aug. 2.

However, there are claims in the district court actions that may require fact-finding by the lower courts, according to the opinion issued Friday. District courts are better equipped to try questions of fact, according to the opinion.

“A court may choose to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in an original action only to conclude—as a matter of law—that the specific petition before it does not lie in mandamus or quo warranto,” Justice Stegall wrote. “And if an action does not lie in mandamus or quo warranto, the petition must be denied. This court does not have discretion to reach the merits of such a claim simply because the question presented is one of statewide importance, significant public concern, or there is a compelling need for an expeditious and authoritative ruling on an important legal question. Language in our prior decisions suggesting otherwise (or interpreted as suggesting otherwise) is expressly disapproved.”

“For mandamus to lie in this case, petitioners must show that a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty requires Judge (Bill) Klapper and Judge (Mark) Simpson to dismiss the cases,” Justice Stegall wrote. “No such mandatory duty exists, and no clear legal duty has been violated.”

The court also added that it did not reach, consider or take any positions on the merits of the underlying claims of the lawsuits. The court encouraged the parties to work with the district courts to expeditiously resolve the legal questions and to present a timely appeal, should anyone desire an appellate review.

“We’re obviously happy with this ruling,” said ACLU of Kansas Executive Director Micah Kubic, in a statement. “Still, there’s a lot of work yet ahead of us in defending democracy and protecting the rights of Kansans, especially the voters of Wyandotte County, Johnson County and Lawrence.”

“We are eager to get the case moving in Wyandotte County District Court so that we can show just how blatant of a partisan and racial gerrymander this map is, and how it tramples on the state constitutional rights of our clients,” said Sharon Brett, ACLU of Kansas legal director. “We look forward to putting on our evidence and demonstrating our case.”

The plaintiffs in Alonzo et al. v. Schwab asked Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper to do so in their original motion to expedite. 

Late last month, the ACLU of Kansas and the Campaign Legal Center along with pro bono assistance from Arnold and Porter Kay Scholer LLP, filed suit in Wyandotte County District Court seeking to block the recently enacted congressional redistricting map.

The suit, Alonzo et al. v. Schwab, against Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Wyandotte County Election Commissioner Abbott, was filed on behalf of 10 plaintiffs who live in Johnson or Wyandotte counties and an additional plaintiff who lives in Lawrence.

The suit argued that the new map cracks the most racially diverse county in Kansas in half in a brazen attempt to dilute the voices of minority voters. The lawsuit argued that the congressional map constituted partisan and racial gerrymandering, violating the equal rights and political power clauses, free speech and free assembly clauses, and the right to suffrage provisions of the Kansas Constitution.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt today issued a statement after the Kansas Supreme Court denied the state’s petition:


“We had hoped to resolve the unsettled constitutional questions in these unprecedented cases more quickly and efficiently by presenting them directly to the Kansas Supreme Court,” Schmidt said in the statement. “But today’s decision requires we resolve them the slower and potentially far more expensive way by starting in the trial courts, so that is what we will do.”

To see today’s decision, visit
https://www.kscourts.org/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Opinions/124849.pdf?ext=.pdf.