Recent Kansas editorials

The Kansas City Star, Jan. 15

Abortion opponents say Kansas is firmly pro-life. So why are they so intent on dodging the public will?

As the Kansas Legislature restarts last year’s effort to amend the state constitution to allow regulating abortion, amendment supporters again want to have the public vote on it during a low-turnout primary, this time in August 2022.

It’s that curious insistence on avoiding a big November election turnout that derailed the amendment last year - when four Republican House members objected to the bill largely because of the attempt to sneak it through an August primary in the distracted days of summer.

The ploy is more likely to succeed this year, though, because the four objecting House members are gone, and voters sent more conservatives to the Legislature.

“The elections were, I think, a great affirmation of how Kansans feel about the need to regulate the abortion industry,” says Jeanne Gawdun, Kansans For Life director of government affairs. “The will of the people is that they do not want an unregulated, unlimited abortion industry - that reasonable regulations are needed.”

As evidence, Kansans For Life touts a 2019 Gallup Poll saying 74% of Americans support limitations on abortion, and the organization argues that, “Kansas trends more pro-life than the nation as a whole.”

If all this is true, then why so conspicuously and consciously avoid as many voters as possible by putting the question on a sleepy August ballot?

One reason, Gawdun says, is to avoid the “noise” of a November election and its many state and federal races: “August helps the voters to be able to concentrate on this very critical issue.” Another reason, she says, is that an August election provides the opportunity to start saving lives sooner with the amendment.

The latter argument is a bit specious, since all the amendment would do is affirm the Legislature’s power to pass laws regulating abortion. It’s a power that was swept into uncertainty by a Kansas Supreme Court ruling in 2019 that the right to abortion is implicit in the state constitution. But as to Gawdun’s argument on urgency, no changes in the law will occur in the short span between August and November 2022.

Abortion opponents fear the court’s ruling could result in existing regulations being struck down and future ones being forestalled. So far, none of the state’s abortion laws has been altered by the ruling, though lawsuits challening their constitutionality are pending.

Rachel Sweet, regional director of public policy and organizing at Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, says the organization believes individual rights such as abortion shouldn’t be up for a public vote in the first place. But she claims the aim of amendment supporters is clearly to avoid voters’ judgment in a November election.

“Let’s be clear,” Sweet said in a statement to The Star. “The politicians and organizations behind this amendment have clearly said that they believe all abortions should be banned and illegal, no matter what. Banning all abortion is not a reasonable restriction of abortion. The proponents know their position is unpopular and out of step with most Kansans, which is why they are pushing for this ballot placement.”

Kansas House and Senate committees were scheduled to receive testimony on the amendment in back-to-back hearings beginning at 9 a.m. Friday.

The Star Editorial Board has endorsed at least having a public vote on the constitutional amendment, but strongly objects to the supporters’ transparent attempt to evade voters with an August primary vote.

Gawdun nonetheless suggests that every registered voter can weigh in on an August ballot. Of course they can. That’s not the issue. Everyone knows November elections are boundlessly more prominent and participated in. Something of this stature warrants a verdict from as many voters as possible.

If access to abortion is as critical an issue as Gawdun argues - and it is indeed one of the most consequential acts the Legislature will consider this session - then it makes no sense to seek out the fewest voters possible when it comes time for the public to decide.

Give us the vote, lawmakers. But make it a November one.

Do you trust voters or not?

_____

The Wichita Eagle, Jan. 14

As the events of the past several weeks illustrate, too many Americans demonstrate a shocking lack of knowledge and respect for our democratic system and the laws that govern it.

Is that at least in part because they weren’t paying attention in history or government class?

Kansas Rep. Steve Huebert seems to think so.

Huebert, a Valley Center Republican and chairman of the House Education Committee, wants to require high school students to pass a citizenship test to get their high school diploma.

If approved, House Bill 2039 would require students in any public, private or parochial school to pass a 100-question test similar to the ones given to immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship, such as:

▪ What is the capital of the United States?

▪ How many amendments does the U.S. Constitution have?

▪ How long is a term for a U.S. Senator?

▪ And, what is the rule of law?

Should Kansas high-schoolers know this? Absolutely. Anyone with a diploma should be able to name the three branches of government or tell you what the Bill of Rights protects.

They also should be able to read a novel, write an essay, compute fractions, name the continents, jumpstart a car, stick to a budget, perform first aid, cook a meal, clean a toilet and do laundry.

But so far Kansas, like the vast majority of states, has decided against any all-or-nothing exams as a requirement for graduation. And we’d argue that a Trivial Pursuit-style civics test isn’t the logical place to start.

If lawmakers want educated, informed citizens, they should heed the advice of educators.

In a 2018 position statement, the National Council for the Social Studies said civics exams - currently required in eight states, including Missouri, Arizona and Arkansas - are an “admirable effort” but should not “become the sole measure of civic literacy.”

That group, like the Kansas State Board of Education, urges other ways of measuring students’ knowledge, such as portfolios, projects, and grades on transcripts.

Kansas high school students are required to pass three courses about U.S. history and government. An exit-exam requirement in that subject area, without similar competency tests in reading, math, financial literacy or the arts, raises a question:

Is this truly about educating young people, or is it another frivolous nod to politics and patriotism?

In 2013, Kansas lawmakers approved Celebrate Freedom Week, a statute that requires schools to devote a week each year to focus on teaching students about the country’s founding. A federal law also mandates the teaching of the U.S. Constitution on Constitution Day every September.

Everyone agrees that students should learn about the country’s history, values and institutions. But this bill assumes that schools aren’t already covering it - and that lawmakers know best what needs to be taught and how learning should be measured.

The timing of Huebert’s proposal is ironic, coming just days after a mob of Trump-inspired insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election.

Another irony: Conservative lawmakers who advocate for local control on measures such as mask mandates keep finding ways to micromanage schools.

Huebert’s goal of a better-educated electorate is admirable. Hinging it on a single civics test, though, won’t solve the problem.

——

The Manhattan Mercury, Jan. 11

The practical question before the U.S. Congress is likely to come down to whether to convict Donald Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors, after he’s already out of office. The answer to that is, most emphatically, yes.

We would certainly prefer President Trump to simplify these matters and resign. He should. He incited an attack on the Congress as it was doing its most important constitutional duty, and so has forfeited any right to hold the nation’s highest executive office anymore.

But let’s be serious. He is not going to do that. Donald Trump is never, ever going to acknowledge any form of shortcoming; he does and says only whatever he thinks is to his own immediate advantage.

It also appears that he will not be removed by the Cabinet, under its powers outlined in the 25th Amendment. That is also unfortunate, since the quicker President Trump leaves office, the better.

That leaves Congress, and impeachment. The U.S. House is already moving forward with charges, which is to be expected. President Trump deliberately provoked an attack on the legislative branch of our republic as it was going about its solemn business of overseeing the transfer of power from one executive to another. It’s impossible to overstate how much of an offense against our system that is.

While he didn’t join the riot, he incited it. There’s no doubt.

So it’ll be up to the U.S. Senate whether to convict President Trump of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” knowing what he’s done.

We would prefer that the Senate take this up as quickly as possible. Mr. Trump has proven himself unfit for the job, even a potential hazard.

But even if the Senate doesn’t get around to this until Mr. Trump is out of office, we believe it’s important to continue with the prosecution of the case. Allowing it to go unpunished would say to the next would-be dictator that it’s just fine to stay in office by brute force.

The point in that instance will not be to remove President Trump from office. Voters have effectively done that, and election officials around the country - many of them from Mr. Trump’s own party - then held firm against President Trump’s assault on the system. The system worked. In the end, even his own vice president upheld the law rather than bend to his pressure.

No, the point is to uphold the law, thereby sending a message to the next would-be strongman. The point is to show the whole world that such an attack on our system of government will not be tolerated. Ultimately, we follow the law, not the strongman.

It’s easy to get sucked down into politics and practical considerations of whether impeachment is worth it. We say, very simply, forget all that. Mr. Trump incited a mob that attacked our system of government. Those are facts. He must face the consequences.