There’s an old joke about the Kansas Legislature: When I die, I want to die in the Capitol building, because nothing’s ever really dead under the dome.
It’s a commentary on zombie bills and the same ideas that keep coming back to life year after year, no matter how badly they stink up the place or how many times they get rejected.
This year, two of the dumbest ideas of the past few several years are already pre-filed as new bills for lawmakers to take up when they come back to session in January.
The award for most egregious waste of legislative resources and staff time goes to Rep. Brett Fairchild, R-St. John, for his House Bill 2001 — another misguided missile aimed at the Kansas Supreme Court. The bill would add “attempting to usurp the power of the legislative or executive branch of government” to the list of impeachable offenses for Supreme Court justices.
I first covered this turkey in 2016, when it passed the Senate by a single vote and died in the House. It was a bad idea then and it hasn’t improved with age.
In fact, twice in the past six months, the voters of Kansas have rejected proposals to expand the Legislature’s power over the other two branches of government.
The first time was the August vote against the anti-abortion “Value them Both” amendment, that sought to override medical privacy rights that the Supreme Court justices had ruled are embedded in the Kansas Constitution.
The second was in November, when voters rejected Constitutional Amendment 1, which sought to allow the Legislature to override rules enacted by the governor and state regulatory agencies.
What part of “No” does this Legislature not get?
The part of this that would be funny, if it wasn’t so dangerous, is that every time legislators try a power grab, they claim they deserve authority over the other branches because they’re “closest to the people.”
If that’s true, why are they so dead set on overturning the will of the people?
ANOTHER previously rejected and ridiculously bad idea in pre-filed bills is Senate Bill 1, by Sen. Mark Steffen, R-Hutchinson. It seeks to regulate social media networks’ terms of service to prohibit the removal of any post that “provides political information or expression.”
It’s a response to complaints that social media platforms target conservatives for censorship.
I don’t know about you, but I get plenty of conservative content in my Facebook and Twitter feeds.
Steffen’s bill, if passed, would stop social media platforms from blocking fake news, foreign propaganda, unfounded political attacks and dangerously bogus medical advice — as if we need more of any of that on social media.
