Editor’s Note: The following is a report by state Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, on recent action in the Kansas Legislature. Davis was appointed to the Kansas House District 46 seat when former state Rep. Troy Findley left the position to serve as legislative liaison for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Davis’ column will be published online throughout the 2003 session of the Legislature.

My week began with a meeting with Acting Secretary of Revenue Joan Wagnon and a few members of the House Taxation Committee. I have known Secretary Wagnon for many years and I can’t think of anyone who is better suited to tackle the many problems at the Department of Revenue than her. She outlined the Department’s tax amnesty plan and stated that she believes it will bring in at least $10 million before the end of the fiscal year. The amnesty plan basically offers people who have accrued substantial tax penalties to pay their debts now and avoid most of the penalties. Secretary Wagnon also discussed a number of issues that she would like the Legislature to review including a streamlined sales tax and some federal enactments that we will have to decouple from or risk losing millions of dollars in revenue.

The Taxation Committee continues to hold hearings on the repeal of the state’s 65 sales tax exemptions. All hearings are well attended and there is a great deal of lobbying that is going on behind the scenes to preserve certain exemptions. I am not sure what the end-game is for this debate but rumor has it that a bill will be brought forward to repeal all the exemptions and then an opportunity will be provided to reinstate exemptions. Don’t be surprised if we end up exactly where we started with 65 exemptions.

There continues to be a great deal of talk about the behavior of House Insurance Committee Chair Patricia Barbieri-Lightner, who apologized to the Insurance Committee on Monday but also stated that she would not take any further action on the insurance mandate bills that were heard in her committee. While I appreciate Representative Barbieri-Lightner’s apology to the committee, I am very disappointed that she will not allow the proponents of my contraceptive equity bill to be heard. As I stated in my column last week, when the people of Kansas come to the Kansas Capitol to testify on a bill, they should be treated with respect and allowed to express their opinions. Representative Barbieri-Lightner has obviously been blinded by her personal views about contraceptive equity which have caused her to disrespect the legislative process.

The House Transportation Committee dealt with several interesting issues this week. The Legislature has debated whether Kansas ought to have a primary seat belt law for a number of years. So far, we have not elected to give law enforcement the ability to stop a driver solely for a seat belt violation. The Kansas Highway Patrol has asked the Legislature to amend the current law to allow them not to issue a citation on the primary violation, but issue a citation for the seat belt violation. The Transportation Committee deliberated over this proposal for quite a while before deciding not to act favorably upon it because many members felt it would be a move closer to a primary seat belt law. We also debated whether to allow school buses to drive 65 mph on highways (currently a school bus may not drive faster than 55 mph). The bill passed the Transportation Committee and the full House of Representatives despite many legislators (including myself) opposing the measure because studies have shown that increased speed limits only lead to more accidents and fatalities.

The Judiciary Committee has been very busy with many committee meetings lasting well over two hours. I made my first trip to the microphone in the House of Representatives (otherwise referred to as “The Well”) to support a bill that would ban home inspectors from inserting clauses into inspection contracts that immunize them from any liability resulting from negligence. The Judiciary Committee also conducted hearings on Monday on two bills that I introduced. The first bill would take away party affiliations in judicial elections where judges are elected in Kansas. The second bill would create a judicial evaluation process whereby judges are evaluated by persons who come into contact with the court system and the results of the evaluations are published prior to judicial retention elections. I introduced both bills because I believe they will help provide more accountability and respect for the judiciary.

The most controversial issue that came before the House of Representatives was a bill titled “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” The bill essentially proposed to require that courts use a “compelling interest” standard of review in all cases where a litigant is asserting a freedom of religion claim. Many opponents of the bill assert that this will allow certain criminal activity to be shielded by freedom of religion claims. Congress passed a similar law several years ago, which was later found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. After talking with several constitutional law professors, I decided to vote against the proposal for one primary reason. I believe it is unconstitutional for a state legislature to dictate to the court system what standard of review ought to be used in a federal constitutional case. The United States Supreme Court has already declared this law to be unconstitutional and I don’t believe the State of Kansas ought to enact the bill and risk having to spend thousands of dollars defending it from constitutional challenges.

Next week will be very busy since “turnaround day” will occur on March 1st. Turnaround day is the day when all bills introduced in a legislative chamber (House or Senate) must be passed out of that chamber or they die. Therefore, we will be spending a lot of time in committees early in the week and a lot of time on the House floor later in the week. Hopefully, we will get our business concluded by Saturday.