TOPEKA
A “citizen’s veto” of school finance decisions on Tuesday became the latest idea put forward as a possible response to the Kansas Supreme Court ruling that education funding is inadequate and unconstitutional.
Voters would have the power to overturn legislation they believe inadequately funds schools, or a Supreme Court decision that incorrectly interprets the state constitution. Exactly what would trigger a statewide vote is unclear.
Attorney General Derek Schmidt put forward the idea of what he called a citizen’s veto Tuesday. He emphasized that the Legislature must respond to the court’s decision that schools are inadequately funded, but said he also supports a discussion over changing the state constitution.
“I worry a little bit about sometimes whenever people start talking about constitutional amendments people get into defensive mode. And it shouldn’t have to be that way. There is room for a real, and I hope thoughtful and maybe bipartisan, discussion,” Schmidt said.
Schmidt, a Republican, said he wasn’t offering a specific proposal, but that the citizen’s veto was a concept worth discussing.
Unlike a number of other states, Kansas doesn’t have an initiative petition process to allow voters to approve legislation. Schmidt said that “perhaps there is a way this concept … could be narrowly adapted so that the people of Kansas” can weigh in on school funding decisions.
Rep. Valdenia Winn, D-Kansas City, questioned why voters should be allowed to weigh in on the topic of school finance but not others.
“If you put so much weight in the people, then you have no right, in my opinion, to be selective,” Winn said.
Schmidt’s comments came during a meeting of a special legislative committee tasked with developing a response to the court.
The Legislature has until April 30 to tell the Supreme Court how it plans to respond. Schmidt recommended lawmakers pass a bill by March 1 in order to give the attorney general’s office time to develop a brief and prepare arguments for the court.
What that response will entail is unclear. A handful of school districts that have sued the state say up to $600 million in additional funding is needed.
The amount would require either significant tax increases or budget cuts. Producing $600 million through cuts alone would require an approximately 18 percent cut to all other agencies.
That’s led to discussion among some lawmakers over the possibility of a constitutional amendment that could either undercut current litigation or make future challenges more difficult. Others are dismissive or skeptical of plans for an amendment, noting that previous attempts to change what the constitution says about school finance have failed.
Sen. Carolyn McGinn, R-Sedgwick, said the primary focus of lawmakers should be on addressing the issues raised by court, including academically underperforming children.
“Then, as we get into this, if we start hearing from people back home that they’d like to have a constitutional amendment, then I think we can have that conversation,” McGinn said.
Jonathan Shorman: 785-296-3006, @jonshorman
This story was originally published December 19, 2017 1:56 PM.