Here is the text of Gov. Bill Graves’ veto message on a bill redrawing

Kansas Senate districts:

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS:

Pursuant to Article 2, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of

Kansas, I hereby veto Substitute for Senate Bill No. 379 for the following

reasons:

Few of the basic tenets of our country are more precious than the

right to vote. It is a right established in the United States Constitution,

and further protected by the equal protection clause, which mandates the

realignment of voting districts to ensure the constitutional right of one

vote per person. In an effort to afford these rights due deference, the

Kansas Senate established a procedure and rules to govern their decisions

about redistricting. This process, which included almost one year of public

hearings and input, was designed to provide an open discussion of the

options available for protecting the interests of all Kansas citizens.

Substitute for Senate Bill 379 was not presented to any committee

or afforded the opportunity for general public discussion and input. Many

of the Senators impacted by the changes in this map, including some who

voted for it, were not even provided a chance to look at the map, let alone

study and comment on the maps implications to the voters of their

respective Senate districts.

Lack of review has led to many concerns regarding the legality and

fairness of this bill. For instance, a primary objective of redistricting

is to maintain the core of existing districts. This is especially important

since Senators do not run for re-election for two more years and will

continue to serve current constituents during this time period. Every

effort should be made to avoid splitting cities and current Senate

districts. Even though consensus population figures establish that 13 of

the State’s existing Senate districts are within the legally allowed

population deviation, the map passed by the Senate maintains only three of

these districts. Further, the Senate bill splits at least 22 cities into

different Senate districts. Clearly, this does not protect the core of

existing districts. But more importantly, it negatively impacts the people

of these districts and their ability to have a voice in the Senate.

Due to the lack of timely presentation of the bill in question, no

effort was made to evaluate the impact of these actions. It is essential to

the protection of Kansas’ voters that communities have the opportunity to

promote their common interest through the election process. Without

hearings on the bill, individual citizens, and Senators representing their

interests, were unable to raise concerns about the potential impact on

their communities. Just as significantly, the committee wasn’t afforded the

opportunity to adequately analyze the bill in light of any special social,

economic, cultural, racial and ethnic communities of interest or to

evaluate the population deviations affecting issues facing these

communities. The presentation of redistricting proposals to the designated

committee, with an opportunity for public comment, was an essential part of

ensuring the integrity of this process for the citizens of the State of

Kansas.

I believe the courts would share my concerns regarding the vast

changes made to the Johnson County districts. This is an exceptionally fast

growing area of the State where communities of interest have been ignored.

In one district, a significant number of constituents were separated from

their current Senator for no apparent reason. Following the public

hearings, Johnson County Senators jointly recommended a redistricting map

designed to best accommodate consistent service to their constituents. The

bill passed by the Senate ignored this recommendation and dramatically

altered the Johnson County Senate districts.

Even though the southwest Shawnee County Senate district did not

need a single modification to meet the constitutionally mandated population

deviation figures, residential areas linked by common business, social and

economic interest to the southwest part of the county were separated from

their existing district and moved to a district largely controlled by those

voters in northern Shawnee County. The northern Shawnee County district,

especially North Topeka, will readily acknowledge its social and economic

interest differs from that of the southwest part of the county. This Senate

Bill alienates citizens from their traditional community of interest. The

ripple effect of this modification caused yet another Shawnee County Senate

district to change boundary lines when little or no change in the Senate

district was necessary.

Some contend the Substitute Bill was necessary because the Senate

Redistricting Committee did not attempt to address the concerns of rural

communities. This is a puzzling observation since the bill passed out of

committee and the bill passed by the Senate maintain the same number of

districts in rural western Kansas. The only differences in the two

proposals are which two incumbent Senators would reside in the same

district and the percentage of their original district they retain.

Finally, I would discourage anyone from thinking this issue should

be tied to the many other issues we face this session. I have repeatedly

stated and will reiterate now … I will not negotiate or “trade” votes on

this issue for any other issue this session. Unlike other bills crafted on

the floor of a legislative house, the redistricting bill can not be “fixed”

next session when unintended consequences are discovered. Due to its

importance to the citizens of the State of Kansas for the next ten years,

redistricting must be dealt with in a manner designed to serve the people

of Kansas.

I appreciate the fact that the actions of the Senate may have been

the result of the intense partisan nature of the procedure to-date. I would

encourage both Republican and Democrats to reopen discussions with an eye

toward avoiding polarizing any particular region or district. I am

committed to working with Republicans and Democrats to create a

redistricting bill that will address their concerns and mine.

Those who argue that the majority has spoken should remember that

as Governor, I have a strong constitutional responsibility to protect all

Kansas citizens, especially minority interests, and to ensure protection to

those whose votes may be one or two short but whose principles do not fall

short. Protection of the minority voice is a fundamental tenet of our

system of government as is the principle of an open process.

Reapportionment is too serious an issue to be resolved behind closed doors

in the dark of the night.

Given the agreement between the House of Representatives and the

Senate to pass the other chamber’s redistricting bill without alteration,

there was no opportunity for public comment or review of this bill. Thus,

my analysis of the bill provides the only independent review of the actions

taken by the Senate. As Governor, my primary concern in redistricting is

fairness to the citizens of Kansas. Substitute for Senate Bill 379, in both

process and result, ignores this concern. Because, like all other Kansans,

I was not provided the opportunity to review the map prior to passage, my

only option to provide input in the process is through a veto.

BILL GRAVES

Governor