The Kansas House on Thursday declined to go along with a Senate-passed tax bill that would cut state income taxes for most people, with Republican leaders saying there is still too little information available about what it would do to state revenues and the budget.
The Senate Substitute for House Bill 2228 is intended to prevent the state from reaping an unintended windfall that could result from recent changes in the federal tax code.
One of the major changes it makes to the state code would be to allow people to itemize deductions on their state returns, even if they are not able to itemize on their federal returns.
But the Senate added a number of additional provisions authorizing various kinds of tax credits and increasing the amount people can deduct on their state returns for things such as medical expenses and mortgage interest payments.
Perhaps most significant, though, would be a 25 percent increase in the state's standard deduction, which would amount to an across-the-board tax cut for people who do not itemize.
"We agree that we have an interest in returning the windfall from the federal tax changes, and there is one element that does that, on itemized deductions," Rep. Steven Johnson, R-Assaria, who chairs the House Taxation Committee, said on the House floor Thursday.
Although no official estimates have yet been made about how much revenue the state would forego by changing the rules on itemized deductions, Johnson said the other portions of the bill would cost the state at least $140 million a year in revenue.
The conference committee met briefly late Thursday afternoon, and it quickly became apparent how far apart the two chambers are.
Johnson started the meeting by saying the House was not even prepared to make an initial offer until there is an estimate of how much the change in itemized deductions would cost the state, something he conceded would require a detailed analysis of all of this year's individual tax returns. He also said that at present, the House is not prepared to accept an increase in the state standard deduction.
But Sen. Caryn Tyson, R-Parker, who chairs the Senate tax committee, said the Senate has a "strong position" in favor of the majority of the bill's contents, and she was not prepared to make a counteroffer.
Lawmakers have scheduled only nine days for the wrap-up session, with the final "sine die" adjournment set for next Friday, May 4.
Kansas lawmakers were told Wednesday that fixing an $80 million problem in the recently-passed school finance bill may be easier than many first assumed.
During a joint meeting of the House and Senate budget committees, staff from the Legislative Research Department said lawmakers do not need to add another $80 million in K-12 education funding to fix the problem because the money has already been appropriated.
The problem, they said, lies in the formula that distributes money to the state's 286 school districts. Without fixing a flaw in that formula, the staff said, the Kansas State Department of Education would simply end the next fiscal year with $80 million of unspent money in its account.
Later in the day, Sen. Vicki Schmidt, R-Topeka, who serves on the Senate Ways and Means Committee, introduced a bill to change that part of the formula. And Rep. Melissa Rooker, R-Shawnee, who serves on the House K-12 Education Budget Committee, posted on social media that she would do the same on the House side.
The bill is intended to satisfy the Kansas Supreme Court's order to provide constitutionally adequate funding for public schools. But it passed both chambers of the Legislature on the final night of the regular session on Saturday, April 7, with only the bare minimum number of yes votes — 63 in the House and 21 in the Senate.
The $80 million problem wasn't discovered until sometime over that weekend, after lawmakers had adjourned and gone home for a three-week break, and it threatened to re-open the entire school finance debate during the wrap-up session.
So great was the uncertainty, in fact, that Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt petitioned the Supreme Court for an extension of the state's April 30 deadline to submit briefs detailing what the Legislature had done to comply with the court's earlier order.
Late Wednesday afternoon, the court granted that request, giving parties in the lawsuit an additional week, until Monday, May 7, to file their briefs.
The court has said it will issue its ruling no later than June 30, saying whether or not lawmakers have passed a constitutional funding formula. It has also said it will not allow the state to operate schools under an unconstitutional formula beyond that date.
As the Kansas Legislature heads into the third week of the 2018 session, with little progress being made on school finance until a consultant's report comes out in mid-March, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are starting to turn their attention to issues of transparency in the Statehouse.
Transparency has long been an issue at the Legislature, whether it involves anonymous bills introduced by committees, with no sponsor's name attached to them, or the "gut-and-go" process in which the contents of one bill are stripped out and replaced with the contents of another bill, or even the degree to which lobbyists have to disclose how much they, or their clients, are spending to influence legislation.
All of those issues have been reported over the years, but they, along with many others, were nicely pulled together and placed into context in a Kansas City Star series published in November that has drawn much attention from the public, not to mention individual lawmakers themselves.
For example, Rep. Dan Hawkins, R-Wichita, who chairs the House Health and Human Services Committee, announced Thursday that his committee, and likely several others, were putting an end to anonymous bills.
"The person introducing a bill will have to state their name, and if they're part of an organization, state their organization, and all of that information will be put in the committee minutes so it will be searchable," he told committee members, as well as the gathered audience for the meeting.
For many years, individual legislators, as well as members of the public, have been allowed to go into a committee and request the introduction of a bill, and as a matter of courtesy, most committees would agree to introduce it as a "committee" bill, with no named sponsor attached to it.
At times, they would even agree to introduce bills that hadn't even been drafted yet, so-called "conceptual" bills that would be written up later. But Hawkins said he was also ending that practice, at least in his committee, and that anyone wanting a bill introduced would first have to work with the Revisor of Statutes office to draft it in bill form before it can be introduced.
It's been a practice that, on the one hand, gives any individual or interest group considerable access into the legislative process, as long as they're willing to continue working to shepherd their bill toward passage. But it also makes it hard for people, including lawmakers, to shield themselves from scrutiny for introducing controversial or unpopular legislation.
House Democratic Leader Jim Ward of Wichita, a candidate for governor, said in a news conference Friday that he liked the idea, sort of.
"I think that's a great idea," Ward said, before adding: "Wait a minute, I thought it was such a great idea, I proposed it as a (House) rule change last year that would require every committee to make note of who requests a committee bill and the content of that committee bill."
During that news conference with Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka, Ward said that legislative Democrats are planning a news conference Tuesday to announce an entire package of transparency issues, although he wouldn't go into further detail.
But Hensley may have given a hint about at least one part of the package when he announced that he has filed a request under the Kansas Open Records Act to disclose information about all of the contacts his administration had with lobbyists for CoreCivic — the private prison company selected, but not yet hired, as the preferred bidder on a $362 million contract to rebuild the Lansing Correctional Facility — before those people registered as lobbyists for the company Nov. 13.
One of those lobbyists is David Kensinger, who formerly served as Gov. Sam Brownback's chief of staff before starting his own lobbying firm, Kensinger & Associates
"I have great concerns about what kind of influence he (Kensinger) had in bringing this project to the state," Hensley said.
The State Finance Council, made up of the governor and legislative leaders from both chambers, was expected to take a final vote on that project Thursday. But the meeting was abruptly called off when it appeared the project may not have had enough votes to pass due to ongoing questions and concerns from members of the council. That meeting may be rescheduled for as early as Monday, according to the governor's office.
Meanwhile, Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, announced Friday that she wants to introduce legislation requiring anyone who works on contract to influence action by an executive branch official to register as a lobbyist. Currently, lobbyists only have to register if they try to influence legislative action.
"Through discussions in the off-session with legislators from across the country, I learned that many states include the executive branch in their ethics laws and I firmly believe that Kansas should require the same,” Wagle said in a news release. “We need legislation that explicitly states that any person attempting to promote or influence an executive official must report those activities. This will allow for increased transparency in Kansas.”
Kendall Marr, a spokesman in the governor's office, said in an email that Brownback is generally supportive of Wagle's idea, although he wants to see the actual bill before making a final decision.
Regarding Hensley's open records request about lobbying activities on behalf of CoreCivic, Marr said only that the governor's office is currently processing the request.
A former chief of staff to a Kansas House Democratic Caucus was quoted in a national political website Wednesday, saying she was the target of inappropriate sexual advances for years while working for the Legislature.
Abbie Hodgson, formerly of Lawrence, also told The Hill, a Washington-based political news site, that college-age female interns were often called upon to serve as designated drivers after hours to drive inebriated lawmakers home.
Hodgson served as chief of staff under former House Minority Leader Tom Burroughs, D-Kansas City, from 2014 through 2016. In the article, she says that she reported both of those issues to Burroughs and to other House leaders, but when they refused to act, she quit, just two weeks before the 2016 Democratic primaries.
Burroughs disputed that portion of Hodgson’s account. In a separate telephone interview with the Journal-World, he said that as soon as Hodgson reported her allegations he called a meeting of the House Democratic leadership and ordered a stop to the behavior.
Her story was just one example cited in the Hill article detailing how women in state capitols around the country experience sexual harassment on a regular basis. More and more women from all walks of life have been coming forward with similar stories — sometimes posting them on Twitter with the hashtag #MeToo — since the revelations about Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein and the widespread sexual misconduct in the film and entertainment industry.
Before working in Burroughs' office, Hodgson had been active in Democratic politics for years and held a number of posts in the administrations of Govs. Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson. In 2014, she ran unsuccessfully for the 46th District House seat in Lawrence, the seat formerly held by Rep. Paul Davis.
Hodgson lost the Democratic primary that year to Boog Highberger. During that primary campaign, Highberger was pressured into firing his own volunteer campaign manager, Melinda Henderson, after Henderson posted Hodgson's campaign finance report on Facebook, adding the comment: “For my friends and followers who might be thinking about voting for Opponent because she’s younger than Boog Highberger for State Rep. and has a uterus.”
Kansas lawmakers left the Statehouse Thursday for a four-day Memorial Day weekend with a lot of work still waiting to be done — and with money to keep the legislative session going quickly running out.
Lawmakers had budgeted for a 100-day session this year, and Thursday marked the 101st day. They've been working, though, with skeletal staff since early May, which probably saved some money. But Thomas Day, who heads the Legislature's Administrative Services Department, has said there is only enough money in the legislative budget to continue paying legislators their daily salary for a few more days.
Because neither chamber will be in session for more than two consecutive days, the four days they're out do not count as "legislative days," and lawmakers will not be paid for them.
That raises the prospect of lawmakers either having to work without pay, and with no clerical staff at all, even for the key committees, or having to pass a supplemental spending bill for themselves so they can finish the job of passing a school finance plan and a budget, both of which will require tax increases to fund.
It appeared on Thursday, however, that the logjam that has been holding back progress is finally starting to break. That's when the House gave final passage to a new school finance plan that would phase in over two years a $280 million increase in annual education spending, with much of that new money targeting the lowest-performing students.
Critics of that plan say they don't believe it is nearly enough to satisfy the Kansas Supreme Court's definition of adequate funding. But optimists in the House and Senate are hoping it's enough of a good faith effort to convince the court not to follow through on its threat to close schools on July 1, although the court could order additional funding in the out years while keeping jurisdiction of the case.
Quietly, though, some lobbyists and lawmakers have been saying that Democrats and moderate Republicans may have overplayed their hand on school finance. By insisting on passing an education bill first, before they would even consider any tax bill, they ended up getting a much smaller funding bill than they had hoped for. And now it appears likely they'll get a smaller tax bill as well.
The tax debate
In February, both chambers passed a tax bill that would have rolled back many of the income tax cuts that Republican Gov. Sam Brownback championed in 2012. An override attempt passed the House but failed in the Senate.
Soon after, the Kansas Supreme Court handed down its decision in the school finance case, Gannon v. Kansas, striking down current school funding as inadequate and giving lawmakers until June 30 to pass a constitutional funding mechanism.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate said that decision changed the entire landscape, prompting them to insist on addressing school funding before anything else. Others, however, said the outcome of that case was never in doubt, and the March 2 decision should have surprised nobody.
House Taxation Committee Chairman Steven Johnson, R-Assaria, said that passage of the school finance bill now gives lawmakers an idea of how large of a tax package will be needed to fund state government for the next two years, and he'll start working with the Senate in a conference committee to come up with another plan.
Senate back to work
The Senate, which has been pretty quiet for the past week, plans to debate its own school funding plan when senators return from the Memorial Day weekend. That plan — which was recently stripped of Sen. Jim Denning's controversial proposal to fund it through a tax on utility bills — calls for only about $240 million in new spending, phased in over two years. But it would establish a new, per-pupil funding formula similar to the one in the House bill.
The Senate also is expected to debate concealed-carry in the coming week. After learning that the cost of securing just the four state psychiatric hospitals could run as high as $25 million for the next two years, the Senate Ways and Means Committee advanced a bill last week to permanently exempt state and municipally owned hospitals, health care clinics, community mental health centers, nursing homes and other health care facilities from the law that would otherwise require them to allow people to carry concealed firearms starting July 1.
That would also exempt the University of Kansas hospital in Kansas City, Kan., as well as St. Francis Health Center in Topeka, which the KU Hospital Authority is about to acquire, in partnership with Nashville-based Ardent Health Systems.
It would not, however, exempt public college and university campuses from the concealed-carry mandate.
The only other issue that must be resolved before lawmakers adjourn is typically the biggest issue of any legislative session: passage of a budget.
So far this session, the Senate is the only chamber that has even debated and voted on a budget plan, and that was a preliminary budget outline prepared before the officials revenue estimates were updated in mid-April. Since then, the House and Senate budget committees have put together their "omnibus" budget plans, but neither chamber has yet put those bills on the debate calendar.
One option, which would save time but would likely anger many legislators, is for the House and Senate to go directly into conference negotiations on a budget. That's allowed under the fairly lax rules of the Legislature because the issue of a two-year budget has passed out of one chamber and has been considered in committee by the other.
That would mean the full House and Senate would only have the opportunity to vote straight up-or-down on a budget plan negotiated by six people, three from the House and three from the Senate, with no opportunity to offer amendments.
The Kansas House advanced a nonbinding resolution Wednesday that declares pornography a "public health hazard."
House Resolution 6016 has the strong backing of two conservative Christian organizations, American Family Action of Kansas and Missouri, and Family Policy Alliance of Kansas. Lobbyists from both organizations testified in favor of the resolution in the Federal and State Affairs Committee earlier in March. An identical resolution is pending in the Kansas Senate.
Although it does not enact any new laws or regulations, it makes a sense-of-the-House statement that pornography is "a public health hazard that leads to a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms."
The resolution also does not direct county health departments or any other public agency charged with addressing public health hazards to take any specific actions regarding pornography. It does, however, state that "we recognize the need for additional education, prevention, research and policy change at the community and societal levels, and we urge this chamber and other governing bodies to take appropriate steps to ensure progress is made."
"The data is increasingly undeniable and disturbing," Rep. Chuck Weber, R-Wichita, said. "Pornography correlates with a wide range of negative health outcomes including violence against women, child abuse, divorce, prostitution, sex trafficking and addiction."
Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, was the only member of the House who spoke against the resolution. He pointed to such works of art as Michelangelo's sculpture of David and passages in William Shakespeare's play "Romeo and Juliet" as examples of things that some people could construe as pornographic.
Weber, however, shrugged off those suggestions as "ludicrous."
Carmichael further explained his taking exception: "I hope that members of this House, my constituents and the citizens of this state understand that my vote 'no' today, and presumably on final action (Thursday) is not meant as encouragement of violent and graphic depictions, but rather it is in defense of freedom, liberty and the First Amendment, despite the fact that the price of freedom is high."
A bill that would legalize the use of marijuana for certain medical purposes could come up for a vote soon in a Kansas Senate committee, possibly in early March after lawmakers return from their midsession break. But the chairman of that committee isn't predicting its chances of passing.
"I think we ought to vote. We shouldn't try to dodge votes. But I haven't made a final determination on that," said Sen. Jacob LaTurner, R-Pittsburg, who chairs the Federal and State Affairs Committee.
LaTurner said he plans to start working bills in that committee after lawmakers return on Monday, March 6.
Lawmakers adjourned Thursday for a 10-day break after passing the midpoint of the session known as "turnaround day," the deadline for most bills to pass out of the chamber where they originated. But the Federal and State Affairs Committee, which often deals with hot-button social issues, is one of a handful of committees whose bills are exempt from that deadline.
The medical marijuana bill — Senate Bill 155, also called the Cannabis Compassion and Care Act — is the work of Sen. David Haley, D-Kansas City, who said he has introduced it in four of the last five years, with no success so far.
Haley, however, said he thinks "the greater national awareness of medical marijuana" may give it a better chance this year.
In short, it would authorize the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to issue permits for people with certain medical conditions to use marijuana for treatment of those conditions. It also authorizes the creation of nonprofit "compassion care centers" that would be allowed to dispense marijuana to those registered patients.
The medical conditions covered include cancer, glaucoma, positive HIV status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease or nail-patella syndrome. People could also qualify if they have any medical condition that results in cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe pain; nausea; seizures; or severe and persistent muscle spasms like those associated with multiple sclerosis.
The language of the bill notes that marijuana use is still a violation of federal law but that states are not required to enforce or prosecute violations of federal law. It also notes that 26 other states and the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana.
Haley said LaTurner has not personally given him an assurance that the bill will come up for a vote. "But I know that he is hearing from many of his own constituents in his district in Crawford County that the bill deserves to be heard," he said.
At least one of two bills that would partially roll back a mandate to allow concealed weapons in most public buildings is likely to come up for a vote Wednesday in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee.
Rep. John Barker, R-Abilene, who chairs that committee, told the Journal-World Friday that he plans to consider amendments and possibly vote on one of the bills Wednesday, but he had not yet decided which one.
The first bill, which is considered to have the least chance of passing out of committee, would give a permanent exemption for public college and university campuses, public hospitals and mental health centers as well as other buildings owned by local governments.
A hearing on that bill Wednesday drew a large crowd of people testifying in favor of it. But it is believed there are not enough votes on the committee for it to pass.
The second bill, requested by the University of Kansas hospital, would exempt only the hospital facilities within a defined district in Kansas City, Kan.
That bill is thought to have a better chance of passing out of committee, but it will likely be subject to amendment. Rep. John Whitmer, R-Wichita, a supporter of the concealed-carry law, indicated during a hearing Thursday he would be more amenable to it if the exemption is strictly limited to health care facilities in the complex, not to any residential or other type of buildings that he speculated might be developed in the future like a hotel, restaurant or apartment building.
Unless the Legislature acts this year, the four-year exemption that most public facilities received in 2013 will expire July 1.
Others on the committee, though, have said they might want to broaden the bill to include all publicly-owned health care facilities such as hospitals, clinics and community mental health centers.
Even if the bills fail in the committee, supporters of them have said they will look for opportunities to offer them as amendments to other bills that deal with related topics.
An election bill and the first tax bill of the session are awaiting Kansas lawmakers as they head into the second week of the session starting Tuesday, with most lawmakers coming off of a four-day weekend.
Friday was a "pro forma" day, meaning only a handful of lawmakers in each chamber show up to gavel in, read the introduction of a few bills, and gavel out, ensuring that it counts as a legislative business day, and that they all get their daily salary and allowance. Lawmakers are off Monday for the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday.
The Senate Ethics, Elections and Local Government Committee will get to work at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday on the elections bill that the House passed on Wednesday. That's the one that cleans up the outdated statute on special elections to fill vacancies in U.S. House seats. Lawmakers are rushing to get that bill to Gov. Sam Brownback to sign before Rep. Mike Pompeo of Wichita is confirmed as CIA director.
Probably the most exciting hearing next week, however, will be in the House Taxation Committee at 3:30 p.m. Thursday. It will hold a hearing on House Bill 2023, which would repeal the so-called LLC loophole that allows the owners of more than 330,000 farms and small businesses to pay no state taxes at all on the income they derive from those operations.
The bill would repeal that provision, and make the repeal retroactive to Jan. 1, 2017. It also repeals several other minor provisions of the 2012 tax bill dealing with adjustments that the state makes to federal adjusted gross incomes when people use that figure to file their state income taxes.
That law is thought to be the most unpopular part of the tax cuts that Gov. Sam Brownback and conservatives in the Legislature pushed through in 2012, and many of the new legislators who won election in 2016 campaigned specifically on a promise to repeal it.
By itself, though, repealing the LLC loophole would only generate about $250 million a year, give or take. The official "fiscal note" on the bill hadn't been published at the time of this writing. The biggest part of the 2012 tax cuts — the part that resulted in the largest drop in income tax revenue — was eliminating the top tax bracket for the wealthiest filers and reducing individual rates across the board on the remaining two brackets.
There are members on both sides of the aisle, and in both chambers of the Legislature, who would prefer to see a more comprehensive tax package that would actually put the state back on the road to long-term financial stability, and they fear that passing a stand-alone bill on the LLC exemption will make it tougher to pass any other tax legislation this year.
The traditional practice on tax bills is to bundle several things together so there's something in the bill for everybody to dislike, but also one or two things that different constituencies want. But that's usually only successful if there's a governor who is willing to hold his or her nose and swallow a few things, and Brownback hasn't given much indication that he's willing to cave on any part of his tax plan.
That means the only alternative is to put together a broad-based tax package that can get two-thirds majorities in both chambers to override an almost certain governor's veto. That's a monumental task on almost any topic, but none more so than tax increases.
Other committees are still in their early stages of the process, getting briefings on various issues and meeting with the cabinet secretaries in charge of each committee's policy area, mainly for the benefit of new legislators who are unfamiliar with all the details of issues that their committees deal with.
The House Appropriations Committee will get a briefing at 9 a.m. Wednesday on the unclaimed property portfolio. Currently, the state puts a portion of its idle funds, equal to the amount it holds in unclaimed property, into a special investment fund managed by the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System where those assets can earn interest.
Brownback has proposed liquidating those assets and cashing in the estimated $45 million in accrued earnings.
On Thursday, the same panel will hear presentations on the KPERS fund and Children's Initiatives Fund. Brownback has proposed freezing the state's contribution into KPERS at 2016 levels for the next two years and writing off the nearly $93 million payment that the state delayed making last year and was supposed to repay this year.
He has also proposed selling off the state's interest in future tobacco settlement payments, the sole source of funding for the Children's Initiatives Fund, and putting CIF-funded programs into the state general fund.
The K-12 Education Budget Committee, which will be in charge of writing a new school finance formula on the House side, will hear presentations at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday from Dale Dennis, a deputy education commissioner and expert on school finance issues, as well as Madeleine Burkindine, director of the Schools for the Deaf and Blind.
On the Senate side, the Transportation Committee will hold a hearing at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday on Senate Bill 5, which would enable certain people whose driver's licenses are suspended for failure to pay a traffic fine to apply for a restricted drivers license.
The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee will hear from the Attorney General's office Wednesday on the status of a lawsuit pending at the Kansas Supreme Court challenging an abortion law. It will also be briefed on the state's concealed-carry law, including provisions set to take effect July 1 requiring most municipal buildings, as well as college and university campuses, to allow people to carry concealed weapons unless they provide adequate security to ensure nobody can bring weapons into the same places.
The Senate Utilities Committee will hear a presentation at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday from the Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association on the status of the oil and gas industry in Kansas. The Brownback administration asserts that low commodity prices in the oil and gas industry are largely responsible for the sluggish economic growth and lower-than-expected tax revenues in Kansas for the last few years.
The above list is a partial schedule of events, as published in the House and Senate calendars on Friday. All schedules and topics are subject to change.
Sitting in the Senate Republican caucus meeting Wednesday as elected lawmakers openly talked about defying the Kansas Supreme Court if it closes schools next month, it was hard for people of a certain age not to think back about Richard Nixon and Watergate.
At the height of that scandal, a federal judge ordered the White House to hand over hundreds of hours of tapes of conversations in the Oval Office that had been secretly recorded. The White House refused and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Nixon White House had never been particularly forthcoming with information, and the people there had little apparent respect for the authority of any other branch of government to tell them what they could or could not do, up to and including the secret bombing of Cambodia.
So there was naturally great concern about how Nixon would respond to a Supreme Court order to hand over the tapes — tapes that everyone knew would lead to the search for the proverbial "smoking gun" that would bring Nixon down.
As the political tension reached its zenith, the question being asked in American living rooms throughout the country was, "If the president of the United States doesn't have to obey a court order, why should anyone else?" It challenged the very fundamental American notion that no person is above the law, not even the president.
Ultimately, the only power any court has is the power that the public agrees it has. Its power is based on the shared public acceptance that its rulings, however much one might disagree with them, must be obeyed. Day in and day out, that sentiment generally goes unquestioned in Kansas and across the country.
It was a constitutional crisis in the truest sense of the term. In the end, though, Nixon did turn over the tapes, which did produce the "smoking gun." Whatever support he had left in Congress by that time suddenly evaporated, and before the week was out Nixon had resigned.
Later, during a series of interviews with British TV host David Frost, Nixon gave this bone-chilling assessment about his view of presidential power: "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
"By definition?" Frost asked. "Exactly, exactly," Nixon replied.
Frost was asking about the president's power to order covert intelligence operations, both at home and abroad, in the interests of national security. And Nixon's response reflected the kind of expansive view about presidential power that historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. had described in the title of his 1973 book, "The Imperial Presidency."
Fast-forward to the present and Wednesday’s Senate GOP caucus meeting.
"Eventually, we're going to have to stand up to this court and let them know that we are the Legislature, they are not the Legislature. Capitulating with them is, I think, a poor strategy and would continue to be unsuccessful," said Sen. Jeff Melcher, of Leawood.
"We are the appropriators. We are the policymakers. End of discussion," said Sen. Julia Lynn, of Olathe.
"We're going to listen to a court that can't even follow the law?" asked Sen. Greg Smith, of Overland Park. "They have one job, and one job only, and that is to reason and listen to the evidence and make an opinion. And that's all it is, an opinion. They can't tell us what to do. They can opine, and that's the end of their authority."
In the Nixon era, the fear was that his expansive sense of presidential power could erode the power of the other branches, along with public confidence in them. The president, after all, is a citizen like everyone else. If Nixon could defy the court, why couldn't anybody?
Likewise, if taken to their logical extreme, the comments of those legislators Wednesday might lead one to ask: If the Legislature doesn't have to obey a court order, why should a divorced parent who has been ordered to pay child support? Why should any debtor who has been ordered to repay his creditor?
It seemed that the only thing missing from Wednesday's debate was for someone to stand up and say, "When the Legislature does it, that means it is not illegal."
Burdett Loomis, a Kansas University political science professor and an active Democrat, said it's not unreasonable to think that Kansas is witnessing the emergence of an "Imperial Legislature."
"It does strike me that the Legislature thinks that whatever it does should not be questioned," he said. "And it’s even broader than that. They think they represent the state, so if they want to not enforce federal laws, or reach down to the local level and tell localities what to do, all wisdom resides in the state and the state Legislature."
Loomis, who worked briefly in Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' administration, said the trend became noticeable after Brownback and his conservative allies swept the 2010 elections in Kansas, wresting control of the Kansas House from the coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans who had formed an effective governing majority. And it was sealed two years later when conservatives purged the Kansas Senate of most moderate Republicans in the 2012 GOP primaries.
In some ways, Loomis said, what Kansas is seeing now goes beyond what America saw in the Nixon White House.
"I think in the end, it was the legislative branch that came to Nixon and said, you’ve got to go. It was Nixon defying the court in every way," he said. "Here you’ve got both the governor and the Legislature. The governor could have stepped up and demanded the Legislature confront the issues before it. But he was unwilling and they were unwilling."
Brownback so far has not said whether he will call a special session later this month to deal with the school finance issue. And even if he did, it remains unclear whether the Legislature can muster the votes to pass a bill that would satisfy the court.