Topeka Capital Journal, Oct. 26
A constitutional amendment stands to save nearly a million taxpayer dollars by eliminating a costly and largely pointless bureaucratic exercise.
The amendment, which stops the census adjustment for Kansas legislative apportionment, is on ballots statewide Nov. 5. Kansans should vote yes on this common-sense measure, passed with broad bipartisan support and favored by Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab.
The constitutional amendment is an effort to fix a problem Kansas has been working on for decades: how to count Kansans to apportion seats in the Kansas Legislature. Kansas did its own, duplicated version of the federal census until 1988. That year, Kansans wisely passed a constitutional amendment requiring the state to use the federal census to apportion seats.
Unfortunately, that constitutional amendment still required some adjustments to the federal census. Students and military personnel had to be contacted via survey every 10 years and asked where they wanted to be counted. The survey would take place at the same time the federal government would contact them asking virtually the same question.
At the time of passage, legislators wanted to protect rural representation while diluting blocks of military and student voters. The voting age had only recently dropped to 18 from 21 and the impact of student votes was unclear. What supporters of census adjustment did not anticipate is how little real impact the adjustments would have.
In the three surveys since, adjustments have had little impact, says Davis Hammet, president of Loud Light, which is an organization trying to foster a culture of citizen participation in Kansas. Many students and military personnel do not participate, and most of those who do respond to the survey choose to remain counted in the area in which they reside. At the most recent adjustment in 2010, Fort Leavenworth and Fort Riley refused to use federal resources to assist in the project, decreasing military participation.
Less than 1.5 percent of the Kansas population ended up being adjusted.
Ironically, the county that benefited the most from adjustment was Johnson County, not the rural areas that the adjustment intended to benefit. Even as the winner in this strange process, Johnson County only added 6,000 people, or 1 percent of the county’s population. Rural areas, meanwhile, generally lost as many students from rural community colleges as they received from students living at urban universities.
Kansas is the only state in the nation to undergo such a process, and we have little to show for our efforts. This labor-intensive shuffling of small numbers of Kansas residents comes with significant cost to taxpayers. The Kansas secretary of state estimates the survey would cost Kansans $835,000 in 2020, plus hundreds of hours of state worker time.
The only real reason we continue to undergo the survey every 10 years is because it requires a constitutional amendment to stop it. The amendment also asks Kansans to peek inside the complex history of political apportionment, a world most of us find largely unfamiliar and at times, confusing.
But Kansans tend to favor efficient government and responsible spending.
They should vote yes on Nov. 5.
_____
Lawrence Journal-World, Oct. 27
The Hatfields and McCoys made for a great story, but they didn’t make for a great neighborhood. It is a thought worth remembering as the University of Kansas resumes its athletic rivalry with the University of Missouri.
KU last week announced the creation of a six-game basketball series between KU and MU that will run from the 2020-21 to the 2024-25 seasons. The longtime, bitter rivalry came to an end in 2012 when Missouri left the Big 12 Conference to join the SEC. KU, at that time, said it had no interest in playing Mizzou again, given that its defection put the entire Big 12 Conference in jeopardy.
The decision to resume the rivalry isn’t that big of a surprise, given that there is money to be made off of it. Missouri officials have been saying that since 2012, and KU officials eventually proved them right. (Full disclosure: The Journal-World and its KUsports.com site likely will try to make money off the rivalry as well, meaning we’ll try to keep our stones away from our glass house.)
The resumption of the rivalry also isn’t that big of a deal in the grand scheme of our world today. It probably isn’t worth the time of a lengthy debate. Still, let’s use the announcement as an opportunity to remember a few things:
. The rivalry had grown too ugly. The KU vs. MU football games in Arrowhead Stadium had become unenjoyable to many KU fans. Whiskey bottles flying past your ear, shoving in the stands and palpable tension between crimson and blue and gold and black wherever you walked. Missouri fans were obnoxious to KU fans. They likely felt the same about KU fans. KU basketball coach Bill Self said last week he missed “the fans’ hatred for one another,” which seems like an odd statement to make in today’s world. The KU vs. K-State rivalry feels much healthier. If KU insists on restarting the rivalry, hopefully they can give it more of that feel. But that will be a tall order, given the history. Sometimes it is best to realize that life will be fine if you never see each other again.
. What Missouri did in 2012 in leaving the Big 12 Conference was a serious matter. Missouri - and to be fair, Nebraska too - really sold out their region of the country. The Big 12 Conference is one of the institutions that brings attention to the central region of the country. In a small way, it gives a region that needs a voice an opportunity to have one. For reasons of jealously and delusions of grandeur, Missouri and Nebraska put all that at risk. KU was in real jeopardy at the time. It is not hard to imagine KU playing basketball in the Big East Conference. It would have created not only a geographic mess, but a financial one. Nebraska and Missouri have gone on to create pedestrian lives in new neighborhoods. We probably don’t need to hold that grudge any longer, but why do we need to break bread with them?
. If KU wants to create a rivalry that matters, begin playing Wichita State in basketball every year. There are many KU fans who would much rather see that game. The reasons that KU previously cited for not scheduling WSU seem hollow now. If the power of athletics is as important as some university officials want us to believe, KU should schedule Wichita State on an annual basis. It would make Wichita State as an institution stronger.
Some fans may say that is the reason not to schedule WSU. Those are fans of basketball only. Fans of the state should feel differently. The state of Kansas needs all the help it can get. Most of the state is declining in population. Wichita continues to be viable for population growth, but only marginally so. WSU will play an important role in boosting the Wichita region. Again, if KU officials truly believe that athletics can make an institution stronger, then help a fellow state school add a marquee game to its schedule every year.
It would make the neighborhood better. Our new Hatfield and McCoy show probably won’t.
_____
Kansas City Star, Oct. 28
Kansas Senate Majority Leader Jim Denning has offered an important plan to expand Medicaid coverage in the state. A Senate committee endorsed it last week.
Conservative Republicans don’t like it. “The fact we’re trying to expand it as Republicans is unfortunate,” said state Sen. Ty Masterson, a Republican from Andover.
Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat who says expanding Medicaid is her top priority, is also a skeptic. “We need a Medicaid expansion plan that is simple, effective and sustainable for Kansas,” she said in a statement.
Conservatives want tougher abortion language. Liberals want more specifics.
When a proposal is attacked from the right and the left, it’s often a good sign that you’re on the right track. Denning, a Republican, is.
We’ve argued for Medicaid expansion in Kansas for years. There are several economic reasons for extending health insurance coverage to people with low incomes - it can help save rural hospitals, it brings federal money to the state, it creates jobs.
But the most important reason is fundamental and moral. No one should go bankrupt or end up in jail because of illness.
This is not an idle concern. Recently, ProPublica published a devastating story about medical debt collection in southeast Kansas. There, men and women with crushing medical debt often end up in jail.
Expanding Medicaid wouldn’t solve every health care problem in Kansas, or the nation. But it would provide at least some protection for roughly 150,000 of our most vulnerable neighbors. That’s why 36 states have expanded Medicaid.
Powerful Republicans lawmakers in Kansas have prevented progress on this issue. Some think health care is a privilege reserved for the wealthy.
That’s why it’s so encouraging that Denning has offered a serious starting place for negotiations.
The Denning plan would require tax increases on cigarettes and vaping liquid. It adds surcharges and fees for hospitals and managed care providers. Those changes provide more than $120 million annually, which is the state’s estimated cost for expanding Medicaid.
Denning wants a dedicated revenue source for expanded Medicaid. While we might do it differently, the idea of providing new funds for the program is a good one. Expanding Medicaid while cutting the sales tax on food - another must-do item for lawmakers - would put a serious dent in the state’s budget.
Kansans should encourage Denning and his colleagues to continue their work. Kansas must expand Medicaid in 2020. The new proposal offers the first step on that path.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.