Kansas attorney general asks high court to block redistricting lawsuits

by Sherman Smith, Kansas Reflector

Topeka — Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt wants the Kansas Supreme Court to block a pair of lawsuits challenging the legality of a new congressional map.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Loud Light filed separate lawsuits Monday in Wyandotte County District Court. The lawsuits argue the state constitution’s bill of rights provides protection against political and racial gerrymandering.

In a petition filed Friday, Schmidt asks the state’s highest court to determine whether the U.S. Constitution prevents state courts from considering a challenge to the redistricting of federal congressional maps.

“Plaintiffs’ political gerrymandering claim is not justiciable under the Kansas Constitution,” Schmidt wrote in the petition. “No judicially manageable standard for evaluating such claims exists, Kansas courts have not historically entertained such claims, and the Kansas Constitution has nothing at all to say about political gerrymandering.”

Sharon Brett, legal director for the ACLU of Kansas, said Schmidt’s “argument that Kansas courts are devoid of authority to interpret their own state constitution is without merit.”

“The Kansas Supreme Court can — and indeed should — determine whether legislation passed by the Kansas Legislature violates Kansans state constitutional rights,” Brett said. “To hold otherwise would give this Legislature virtually unchecked power to violate the constitutional rights of Kansans for pure partisan gain. We will vigorously oppose any attempt to strip the Kansas Supreme Court of this important check on legislative overreach.”

This is the first time a redistricting lawsuit has been filed in a Kansas state court.

Traditionally, federal courts have resolved disputes. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, determined in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering claims are beyond the reach of federal courts.

The GOP supermajority in the Legislature adopted a congressional map that divides the Kansas City metro into two districts, and carves Lawrence out of Douglas County to place it in a district that stretches to the Colorado border. The goal of the map is to make it more difficult for the state’s only Democrat in Congress, U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids, to win re-election.

Schmidt, a Republican, is running against Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly in this year’s governor’s race.

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 ACLU of Kansas and Loud Light filed lawsuits on behalf of Kansas City, Kansas, and Lawrence residents who lost voting power in the redrawn map. The northern part of Wyandotte County, which was moved out of Davids’ district, has a majority Black and Latino population.

The legal argument centers on whether the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights contains specific provisions that protect voting rights.

“The constitution says very clearly that all political power is inherent in the people, and that the power of the government is for the people’s equal protection and benefit,” Brett said in an interview when the organization filed its lawsuit. “So each person in the state of Kansas should have equal ability to influence their legislators, elect the electors of their choice, and participate in the essential democracy of our state.”

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/2022/02/18/kansas-attorney-general-asks-high-court-to-block-redistricting-lawsuits/
.

Kansas AG aides attended ‘war games’ summit where group planned response to Biden win

More than 30 staffers in attorneys general offices around the country gathered in Atlanta for the September 2020 event

by Allison Kite, Kansas Reflector

Kansas City, Missouri — Two top aides in Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s office traveled last year to a summit where staffers of conservative attorneys general participated in “war games” to plan how they might respond to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Records obtained by Kansas Reflector show the two aides — Clint Blaes and Jeff Chanay — were approved to travel to Atlanta for a summit of senior staff members of attorneys general offices put on by the Rule of Law Defense Fund, a group associated with the Republican Attorneys General Association. The group paid for the two aides’ expenses.

And while the travel authorization records from Schmidt’s office referred to the event as training, records obtained by a former Democratic candidate for attorney general in Missouri show the September event included a “huddle” referred to as “war games,” where attendees planned how they might respond if Donald Trump lost re-election. It’s not clear what discussions Blaes and Chanay participated in.

“32 AG Staff Members are huddled in Atlanta for a series of conversations planning for what could come if we lose the White House,” said Adam Piper, then the RLDF’s executive director, in an email addressed to “generals” on Sept. 24, 2020.

The Rule of Law Defense Fund was established in 2014 as a “forum for conservative attorneys general and their staff to study, discuss and engage on important legal policy issues affecting the states.” The organization has been criticized for its role in the runup to the Jan. 6 mob attack on the U.S. Capitol, the first time the building has been stormed since the War of 1812.

In a robocall, the organization gave out details on the timing and location of the march protesters took from the White House to the Capitol.

Schmidt distanced himself from those robocalls in the aftermath of the attack and condemned the riot. His spokesman, John Milburn, told the Kansas Reflector in January he had not participated in any decision-making with the group since August of 2020 when he stopped serving on its board. In an email last week, Milburn said Schmidt told the organization he was disappointed in the robocall.

In response to a Kansas Open Records Act request, Schmidt’s office provided a handful of emails showing two staffers were approved to attend the September event. While RLDF funded all their expenses, Schmidt’s office found their attendance would serve “a legitimate state purpose and interest,” meaning that if RLDF didn’t fund the trip, Schmidt’s office would have, according to an email from Chanay.

Chanay, chief deputy attorney general, and Blaes, director of communications, also were allowed to consider those days in Atlanta as working days and were not required to use vacation time for them.

Milburn described RLDF in exactly the words the organization uses on its website — but left out “conservative.”

“The purpose of the staff meeting in September was to discuss potential legal responses of state attorneys general offices to regulations or similar federal government actions that were likely to occur in a potential Biden administration, just as state attorneys general were active in defending the authority of states against unlawful federal power-grabs during the Obama-Biden administration,” Milburn said.

Kathleen Clark, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said the wording of emails provided in response to the Missouri records request — describing war games as exercises in how to respond to the election if President Joe Biden won — raise questions about the accuracy of Milburn’s description.

Regardless, she said, the major issue is that RLDF is a “fundamentally partisan” organization.

“The whole point is that when government officials are acting in their official capacity, like the folks at the Missouri or Kansas attorney general’s office who, on government time, were attending this summit — they’re not supposed to be thinking about whether we lose the White House in the sense of President Trump or we Republicans or, for that matter, we Democrats,” Clark said.

Milburn didn’t respond to a follow-up email asking whether the “war games” exercise included any planning concerning how to contest the election.

The RLDF did not respond to a request for comment.

Elad Gross, a former Democratic candidate for attorney general in Missouri, acquired thousands of pages of documents related to Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s participation in the RLDF through a Missouri Sunshine Law request.

An identical request from Schmidt’s office in Kansas turned up far less communication.

In response to his sunshine request, Gross received an initial 90 pages of communications between Schmitt’s office and RLDF. Records showed more than 30 representatives from attorneys general offices met in Atlanta for “war games,” which Piper wrote would “hopefully … not have to be utilized in November.”

Gross said Schmitt’s office in Missouri is still supplying records, so there’s more analysis to be done.

“There’s no question that there was a pretty obvious coordinated effort between these different offices to challenge the election,” Gross said.

Both Schmitt and Schmidt joined a lawsuit by attorneys general seeking to overturn President Biden’s victory. It was quickly dismissed.

Kansas Reflector filed open records requests in March and May and asked for updates via email over the summer. KORA requires that public agencies provide an explanation and an estimate of how much time the records will take to produce if officials expect it to take longer than three days.

The 15 pages of records were supplied last week.

Max Kautsch, an open records attorney in Lawrence, called it “unfortunate” that the office fails to give requesters an approximate time at which their records requests will be fulfilled, as required by law.

“I don’t understand why the attorney general’s office cannot more promptly respond to KORA requests,” Kautsch said.

Kansas Reflector stories, 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/2021/09/08/kansas-ag-aides-attended-war-games-summit-where-group-planned-to-combat-biden-win/
.

Brady Center challenges constitutionality of Kansas gun law

Today the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence will file a federal lawsuit against the state of Kansas to strike down and stop enforcement of its law that declares guns made and kept in Kansas are exempt from federal gun laws and makes federal regulation of Kansas-made guns a felony, according to a news release.

The complaint, filed today in the U.S. District Court in Kansas, argues the “Second Amendment Protection Act,” enacted in 2013, is unconstitutional and should be struck down. People say that nowadays, gun detection is more important than gun laws. This is why a gun detection System has been developed that can detect guns through a camera and alert the owner through an app, the technology is growing and will become more mainstream over the coming years.

The lawsuit requests that a trial be held in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan. Several Kansas residents, mostly from Johnson County, are referenced in the lawsuit. The lawsuit also makes a reference to a recent shooting at the parking lot of the Jewish Community Center in Overland Park.

“Courts have recognized for years that states cannot just declare ‘null and void’ federal laws they do not like or wish to enforce,” said Jonathan Lowy, director, Legal Action Project, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “Just as Southern states were not allowed to opt-out of federal civil rights laws, the Constitution does not allow Kansas or any other state to nullify federal gun laws that protect Kansans and all Americans from gun violence,” Lowy said.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt responded to the lawsuit.

“We will defend this duly enacted Kansas law that was intended by the Legislature to safeguard Kansans’ rights under the Second and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,” Schmidt said in a news release. “This law has been in effect, unchanged, for more than a year, and the timing and tone of this election-year lawsuit are obviously political. We are reviewing the complaint and will respond in due course and in the proper legal forum.”

Gov. Sam Brownback issued a statement in response to the lawsuit.

“As I have said previously, the right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear. It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights,” Gov. Brownback said in the statement. “The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right. The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

“The Obama administration attacked this legislation when I signed it more than one year ago. It now appears that they have found some Washington, D.C., lawyers to do their bidding. We will vigorously defend the rights of Kansans in this litigation.”

The Brady Center stated that if enforced, this law would have drastic and dire consequences for Kansas residents.

It could allow some federally prohibited people to buy and possess guns, prohibit federal background checks for gun purchases and allow the unlicensed manufacturing of firearms in Kansas, including guns designed to evade metal detectors and airport security screenings, according to the Brady Center. The law could also cripple investigations of gun trafficking and illegal gun sales, the center stated.

“Kansas’ gun nullification law is not just bad public policy, it is patently unconstitutional,” Lowy said.

According to the complaint, the Act is unconstitutional because it violates the Supremacy Clause, which declares that federal law is supreme and gives final power to interpret the Constitution to federal courts, not state legislatures. The complaint also argues that federal regulation of firearms is permitted by the Commerce Clause and that the law’s prohibitions on enforcing federal gun laws violates Kansas citizens’ due process because the law is “unconstitutionally” vague.

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1958 that any and all state laws claiming to nullify federal law are unconstitutional, as states had attempted to circumvent federal desegregation mandates.

As detailed in the complaint, “Nullification has never been upheld and instead has been squarely rejected by the courts under fundamental principles of constitutional law.”

“We are confident the Court will agree that this law is unconstitutional,” Lowy said.

“The statute is remarkable for its complete disregard of basic and long-established principles of constitutional law,” said Stuart Plunkett, partner, Morrison and Foerster and co-counsel in the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. Brownback.

“Our legal system would quickly break down if each of the 50 states were permitted to choose whether or not to follow federal law,” Plunkett said. “The Kansas law is also remarkable for its attempt to resurrect a legal theory from the desegregation and pre-Civil War areas that has been squarely and repeatedly rejected by the United States Supreme Court.”

The complaint was filed on behalf of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its Kansas membership, and names Gov. Sam Brownback and Attorney General Derek Schmidt as defendants. The suit seeks a ruling that the law is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction blocking its enforcement.

The Brady Center has successfully brought lawsuits that have blocked or struck down other gun laws, including a Florida law that prevented doctors from discussing firearms with patients and a Georgia city ordinance that mandated firearm ownership in all households. The Brady Center also prepared to file a lawsuit in 2013 against Missouri for a similar law that nullified federal gun laws, but that law was vetoed by Governor Nixon. The Brady Center is also suing New Jersey for compliance of its law on “smart gun” technology.

A copy of the complaint Is online at www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/Brady-vs-Brownback.PDF.