The United States Senate—​with all but two Republican Senators—​has cleared President Trump of any impeachable actions. What does that mean for our immediate future? What will Trump do beyond what he has already done? Certainly, Trump will do whatever it takes to win re-election, but it would not surprise me if he makes plans to stay in office beyond a second term.

At this point, just what would President Trump have to do to lose the support of Republicans in Congress? This week almost all Republicans are making it clear they are with him regardless of what additional evidence emerges. Even the President’s defense lawyers for the hearings admit to his wrongdoing in many cases. But they insist his actions do not reach the level for “Impeachment (Indictment) for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article II Section 4 of the United States Constitution).

I think back to all the earlier Republican Senators from Kansas that I’ve had a chance to work with or at least get to know. I cannot imagine any of them supporting what is going on now. Kassebaum, Pearson, and Carlson for sure, and I have to believe Senator Dole privately is shaking his head in disbelief. Their values and principles would have stood up to any future primary threat like what now seems to be keeping many of our current Senators towing the party line.

President Clinton lied about sex with a White House intern, and most Republican Senators had no hesitation supporting throwing him out of office. The Democrats in the end backed Clinton, but the trial was a real trial with witnesses and records very available. The rules for the trial were adopted on a vote of 100 to 0. That is in total contrast to the circus run by Majority Leader McConnell. Their vote to essentially skip the actual trial phase and deny the American people access to all the information and relevant witnesses is equivalent to full participation in the cover-up. Now, with multiple branches of government participating in this cover-up, we have reached a dangerous new low for our country.

If Trump, now having survived an impeachment trial, wins a second term, returning to our system of democracy and the rule of law will very likely not happen. Capitalism will dominate. The very rich will solidify their hold on Washington D.C., and our good memories of the past will be just that.  

Trump and his campaign operatives will certainly feel comfortable doing whatever they want to win re-election. Certainly in play will be courting foreign countries to help rig the election in return for some kind of promise of financial support. In time, not cheating may become the pathway to almost always losing. 

If leaders accept this conduct from a President now for whatever reason, I raise these questions: Just how do we get this genie back in the bottle? How do we go from ignoring the law and the Constitution to respecting and adhering to the Democracy and system of checks and balances set up by our founders? This is not just a setback that simply in the passage of time will be corrected. And this is particularly true if President Trump is re-elected, making November 3rd a do or die day for our future.

Looking back over the last ten years and my eighth decade of life, I am sharing what stands out for me both in good ways and bad:

On the good side:

1. I had the pleasure of finishing ten years as Archivist of the United States and played a role in making sure we all understand that it is not just for history that we have records, but to protect citizens’ entitlements (Veterans, for example). And maybe, most importantly given the times we are in, conveying the importance of records as essential in holding the government accountable.
2. My engagement with the School of Leadership Studies at Kansas State University for the entire decade has grown my confidence in the potential of our younger population, giving me hope for the future.
3. Governor Kelly defeating Secretary of State Kris Kobach in the 2018 election.
4. Kansas City Royals won the World Series for the first time since 1985, K-State won Big 12 championships in both football and basketball. Yes, KU won the other nine in basketball, but offsetting that, K-State was 10-0 competing against KU in football. 
5. Kansas State University closed the decade by making really good decisions and hires that will, I believe, have significant positive impact for the coming decade. 

On the bad side: 

1. Having to endure eight Brownback years (and all the mistakes that will haunt Kansans for many years) really makes a much more difficult path to the future for both the Governor and Legislators.
2. The election of Donald Trump as President in 2016. A man with little or no respect for the law, little or no understanding of how our government functions, and little or no appreciation of the huge challenges (e.g., climate change) we face that, if not addressed, will do damage of unbelievable portions.
3. Having Moscow Mitch (Republican Senator from Kentucky) in a position to stop almost every important piece of legislation through the entire decade, even those that had overwhelming public support. In addition, his handling of the courts and judges has set several damaging precedents for the future.
4. Almost 100% of Scientists with a climate background have issued serious warnings throughout the decade and there has been little or no action in response.
5. The national failure to make any progress on immigration reform, funding of infrastructure needs, dealing with gun violence, addressing climate change, as well as the increasing National debt. This represents the utmost failure of our leadership in Washington D.C.

Here’s to a new year and decade with the hope that progress can and will be made.

The good news is that college voter participation is growing significantly. In a recent New York Times article, they shared that college voter “turnout in the 2018 midterms—​40.3 percent of 10 million students tracked by Tufts University’s Institute for Democracy & Higher Education—​was more than double the rate in the 2014 midterms, easily exceeding an already robust increase in national turnout.”

The bad news is that many Republican lawmakers all across the country are doing everything possible to not just stop this trend but to turn it around and not with a persuasive argument but through voter suppression. Intentionally making voting more difficult should not be a surprise, as we have long experienced issues like limited voting places in key areas to create long lines and wait time that can discourage voters. These strategies are all designed to help elect Republicans who struggle to appeal to a broad cross section of the electorate. Apparently, for at least some Republican lawmakers, making it more difficult for some voters to practice their right, just makes common sense if it will help them get re-elected or pass special interest legislation that Republicans support.

In general, today’s state action driven by Republicans to reduce student voting focuses on reducing and in some cases eliminating early voting sites, adding various voter ID requirements and restrictions, making use of student ID cards as difficult as possible, and on election day, not having any voting opportunities on campus. Some would say that this behavior is just politics and everyone does it. Aside from this being untrue, it is certainly not the American way to limit voter participation after all the years of work to get the vote for women and eliminate many restrictions designed to limit certain folks from voting.

We’ve been through voter challenges in Kansas with the reign of Secretary of State Kris Kobach and his agenda of voter suppression. Hid under the guise of detecting election fraud, he did everything he could to limit certain populations from voting, voters that he concluded would vote the wrong way. This in particular included students. At the height of his voter ID law, during the 2014 elections, I recall visiting with students here in Manhattan who did not have the required documents with them at college, such as a birth certificate, which was required in order to fully register and participate in Kansas elections. Many of these restrictions have since been paused or struck down in court, which has allowed for the full registration process to be completed online. And, after years of Kobach’s efforts, there was very little if any evidence of election fraud found. Almost all of his examples were new residents of Kansas that were not always aware of our different policies. Now he is running as a candidate for the United States Senate, and given his track record, I would expect him to, if elected, continue his cause and at the same time show no concern about Russian interference or the serious election infrastructure and security issues that need to be addressed in our national elections. 

Kobach’s replacement as Secretary of State, also a Republican I must add, appears so far to want to increase voter participation, which I commend. Riley County, Kansas has a very professional County Clerk, who happens to be a Republican, running elections who is outstanding in his efforts toward encouraging voting. There are good examples at the local level of folks taking access to the vote seriously, and working to promote it among people no matter their background or political stripes. And, with the courts striking down many of Kobach's restrictions, access to the vote has improved in Kansas, and so has youth participation. All of this is cause for optimism, and I sincerely hope these trends can continue.

Surely this should transcend partisanship; more people involved in our electoral process is a very good thing for our system of government, especially at a time when the values and ideals of democracy are being tested at home and around the world.

If we give a damn about the future and the challenges we face like climate change, we will work hard to stop voter suppression policies and open up more access to the vote, not less. We desperately need young people’s participation in elections to bring a more balanced look at what needs to be done and policies to improve society and the environment for the long term. Making it difficult for young people to vote is just crazy and short-sighted.

How do you celebrate Constitution Day? I suspect that not only do you not celebrate, but you likely are unaware that there is a day dedicated to recognizing the adoption of the U.S. Constitution on September 17th. 

For ten years, I was the Archivist of the United States, and certainly one key responsibility I had was making sure the original Charters of Freedom—​the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—​were protected, preserved, and as accessible as possible to the public. Early in my tenure, my staff and I concluded that we were not doing enough to adequately educate the public who came through the rotunda on the values of the Charters of Freedom. We made major changes to not only enhance the visit to the Rotunda but added educational space to further promote understanding of the Charters of Freedom, the importance of public records, and their many values to our democracy.

On September 11, 2001, the initial terrorist attacks on the Trade Center quickly led to concerns about attacks on Washington D.C. and the possibility of one target being the National Archives. That potential action could destroy the original documents that undergird our whole system of democracy. Fortunately, that did not happen, but the scenario certainly brought to me a reminder of the special value of the work of the Founders. They put together a system with three equal and powerful branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial. For over 200 years, this system has been the bedrock of modern democracy and has become a model for nations around the world.

In late July, as part of this year's Mandela Washington Fellowship six-week Civic Leadership Institute at K-State, I had a very good visit with a young woman from Zimbabwe who ran for public office there and plans to stay involved in public life. She made it clear that folks in her country who want a democracy like ours are now looking at us with real concern and potential doubt. For her and many others, America was the model that many developing nations used to move closer to a real democracy. Her message reminded me that our current crisis may have significant impacts far beyond our borders.

Today our system of governance is being tested daily by an administration that more and more acts if they, the executive branch and particularly the President, can dictate what will be done. Between Executive Orders and other actions that ignore the will of Congress, total disregard for the value of a quality civil service system, using the Presidency for his personal and financial gain, stoking the flames of hatred and racism toward immigrants and other minority groups, and appointing Judges whose ideology is extremely far to the right, the Trump Administration is the beginning of potentially demolishing our democracy. Ignoring legislative budget decisions as if President Trump were more like a King and looking to dictators to form close friendships causes not just me but lots of folks great concern. 

It is my hope that this September 17th, Constitution Day, many of you will raise these issues of concern. I hope that this year, it will not be just another day but a wake-up call for all Americans to understand just how much impact the 2020 elections will have on our future as a democracy. It can no longer be assumed that our system of government will survive if the current disregard for democratic norms and systems of checks and balances continues.

As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Gregg v. Georgia decision in 1976, states were permitted to reinstate the death penalty through state legislation. In 1977-78, the Kansas Legislature introduced and voted unsuccessfully to reinstate capital punishment. As a state legislator, I voted against these reinstatement bills. I was not a passionate opponent; I did not participate in the debates. I just did not feel it was right.

As a candidate for Governor, I kept my position of opposition but said if it passed that I would not veto it. I was comfortable letting the elected legislators by majority vote decide the outcome. Sworn in as Governor in January 1979, I gave little or no thought about the possibility of the death penalty coming up. But, as it turned out, the same voters that elected me also voted in enough change in the Legislature’s makeup that by late March, both Houses had passed and sent a death penalty bill for Kansas to my desk.  

I had ten days to make a decision. My staff assumed I would sign the bill, so there was little discussion as there would have been on almost all other legislation passed. Thinking in depth for the first time, serious doubts about the rightness of the death penalty began to grow in me. As I share with students, there are times when ones values conflict. Yes, I had made a promise to the citizens, but now with the hard reality sinking in, my opposition became passionate and much more real. My staff warned me of the political consequences I would face, and I did not disagree. But on the tenth and final day—​exactly forty years ago today—​I made my decision.

Below, I share the full text of my Veto Message for legislation that would have reinstated capital punishment in Kansas. This message was submitted to the Kansas House of Representatives on April 4th, 1979, and it was the first of four times I vetoed this policy in my time as Governor (1979-1987). The death penalty was eventually passed into law on April 23rd, 1994. We have yet to see it used and often the costs of appeals, delays, and so forth have been much higher than simply "throwing away the key" when the circumstances suggest. Strong but unsuccessful efforts have been made in recent years to repeal that law, including during the current legislative session, but for now it will be up to the people to make it a priority for their legislators.
​

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
April 4, 1979
Topeka, Kansas

Life offers each person opportunities for decisions which are most profound and grave. For each such grave and profound decision, there is only one measure of choosing well. That measure is whether a person can respect what he or she has chosen. And for decisions which are most serious for all of us, it is not always possible to know in advance what one’s decision will be.

I believe that, in a civilized society, penalties applied by the state against those who break the law can only be justified for their rehabilitative, punitive, or deterrent value. I find that capital punishment fails all three of these standards.

I am an optimist. I believe that society can find a way to deal with violence without using violence. I am confident that the State of Kansas can protect its citizens without taking the lives of its criminals. It is for these reasons that I veto this bill.

As Inauguration approaches and the transition period for newly-elected Kansas Governor Laura Kelly comes to an end, the initial approach to the many problems the state faces will become public and ready for the Legislature to engage. I have high confidence that the Kelly administration will do the very best they can for Kansas, and I have no intention of second guessing their directions. What I do want to do is help educate the public on just how massive the problems are and how desperately important it will be for enough legislators from both parties to set politics aside and, in a-non partisan way, work with the Governor to address our endless challenges.

I say all this because we are at a point of no return. We either step up and correct what is not working or the state, at some point soon, will be in a hole so big that getting out just may not be possible. Making these corrections will, from my experience, require at least two actions to take place. First, will be the incredible importance of quality and sustained communication from the Kelly administration to the Legislature and the people of Kansas. Kansans must understand the massive problems we face. Second, citizens need to participate, speak up, and let the Legislature know they expect (and will support) action in addressing these challenges.  

The reality is that quality state government has been totally decimated as a result of the disastrous Brownback years. Public education, as it should, gets lots of attention and, to a lesser extent, the need to take care of our infrastructure is known. Both these areas must be responsibly addressed. But my point is that recent policies have negatively impacted state government across the board. Twelve and sixteen hour shifts for workers in our prisons and state hospitals are not the norm because it is the new way to better serve these agencies’ missions. These institutions simply do not have the budget to adequately undertake their responsibilities and maintain accreditation standards, which can lead to loss of federal funds, further compounding the problem.

Often forgotten is the devastating damage the Brownback administration did to the civil service system. That administration was able, with legislative support, to ignore the long standing system where merit prevailed, which lead to quality folks being attracted to public service. I am sure the Kelly administration will work to get the civil service law changed back. But in this case, the law will allow the administration to switch back to merit now and start the process of recruiting quality public servants we need to successfully carry out state programs and functions. This will all take time and probably much of the four-year term for any significant progress to be made. But steps in the right direction will need to start right away.

For quality government to be restored, it is essential that the public know the long range plan and that the initial steps taken by the Kelly administration are consistent with that plan. From a practical point of view, this will take leadership from both sides of the aisle understanding that it cannot be politics as usual. I know the Governor will be reaching out and doing her part. Key to success is whether the legislative leaders within both parties can set aside 2020 election goals and “gotcha” politics that only lead to stalemate and getting done only what has to be done. We must now put the state and its future first, or that future will not be what we want and need.

Recently, Kansas Governor Jeff Colyer made a big deal about his "tough-on-crime" stance by, in essence, bragging about turning down inmate requests for clemency and pardon. The Topeka Capital-Journal headline read, “Governor Colyer slams door on murderers, rapist pleading for clemency.” In the Wichita Eagle, the Governor highlighted his “denial of 21 requests for pardons.” I am not questioning his decisions, but I do want to put those decisions in perspective and provide some context and history on our court system here in Kansas.

First, Governor Colyer is Kansas’ 47th, and the issues that deal with Pardons and Extraditions have been dealt with by Kansas Governors from day one. My attorney dealing with this area (memory says I had two in my eight years) spent a lot of time dealing with the huge number of requests put together by, almost without exception, jailhouse lawyers. This work gave some prisoners something to do and they were not without talent. The problem was they didn’t have the evidence to make the case. In my time, I dealt with thousands of requests and appreciated the quality of my legal team making sure there was no justification to approve the request. After eight years, I only responded positively twice. The inmates were both lifers dying of cancer with 5 or 6 months to live. They were expensive for the state to incarcerate, and their families were willing to take care of them. I commuted their sentences to a level where they were immediately eligible for parole, allowing the Parole Board—​if they agreed—​to release them, which they did. The very small number of releases is a large credit to our judicial system, which was established to carry out fair and impartial justice by merit-based selection of judges.

That experience has not been the same in some other states. Arkansas is an excellent example of the opposite. Governor Huckabee issued something like 8,000 plus pardons in his tenure. Was Huckabee, of all people, just letting people go to reduce the prison population? Definitely not! He, in fact, was the court of last resort in a state where the whole judiciary was caught up in politics and money. Someone had to provide justice. Other Governors of Arkansas had similar experiences.

So where am I headed? It makes a difference whether judges are selected on merit or on political and money connections. Until the Brownback-Colyer administration, Kansas had a judicial system pretty much free of politics and money. But all that has begun to change. Because the Court of Appeals Justices are not protected by the state constitution, it allowed Brownback-Colyer to successfully press the legislature to make those appointments directly by the Governor. So far, the attacks on our Supreme Court Justices have failed because of the protection of the constitution and the supportive votes of citizens in retaining the five justices up for retention in 2016. But clearly, Governor Colyer is in the camp of wanting to change the constitution to not only allow direct Governor appointments but taking the court out of playing a balancing role in the funding of public education.

The elections in August and November will go a long way in determining whether Kansas goes the Arkansas way or we maintain our historical support of justice and respect for the third and equal branch of government. Think about this before you vote. This is not just another inside the ballpark discussion that in the end doesn’t make a difference. It does. And the impacts for better or worse fall on individuals and entities standing up for a fair and independent judiciary in Kansas.

The tentative positive outcome on both school funding and the overall budget (which could have seen more cuts to Higher Education and additional robbing from the highway fund beyond the existing $450+ million) is the direct result of many successful efforts in the 2016 legislative races. The results changed the makeup of the legislature to one that is more likely to invest wisely in public education and eventually address our serious infrastructure issues. This is the best realistic outcome for 2018. But as it has been said, it ain’t over ‘til it's over, and we are not yet there.

The bill correcting the $80 million error on school funding should be treated as simply a technical correction. But, like it or not, it is an opportunity for amendments and a rehash of the original bill passed and signed by the Governor. The wildcard here is over the three week break, what did legislators hear from constituents and/or lobbyists with money for the fall election? Were they complimented for doing what was right or castigated for over funding and bowing to the Supreme Court? As votes are taken on amendments, we will quickly know which way legislators were successfully directed.

Opinions differ on whether the school funding bill might need tax increases sometime soon. But for now, not having to make any tax increases in an election year made the most legislators happy. Unfortunately, they are working a possible tax cut for Kansans tied to the changes nationally on deductions. I understand the politics. But this is a missed opportunity to take a modest step in putting together the resources for next year that are going to be needed if we want to make further progress on getting the State of Kansas back on track.   

So what is the Court’s next move? Will the legislative funding number be enough? At this point, I hope so for the sake of the court system and the positive step taken to fund education. Shooting down what the Legislature has done could set off a constitutional crisis. For sure, there would be another push for changing the Constitution and further movement to throw Judges out of office. Neither of these actions, if successful in the broader sense, would be good for the State of Kansas. It would signal a declining support for public education, a movement away from the three equal branches of government that our founding fathers knew was necessary, and it would leave partisan politics playing a much stronger role than ever.

Sine Die, final adjournment is set for May 4th. If things don’t go as hoped, there will very likely be a special session of the legislature this summer.

With Governor Brownback’s State of the State speech and the release of the Administration’s budget recommendations, we now have the opening of this year’s legislative session behind us. What makes this year totally unique are two factors not routinely in play. First, we don’t know how long it will be until we will have Governor Colyer—​as we await news from the US Senate on Browback's confirmation effort. Second, the the Kansas Supreme Court and school finance hangs over the Capitol like a tornado on the horizon. To say this session will be a huge challenge is an understatement.

Early reaction says the budget that the Administration delivered was dead on arrival. Republicans, in particular, have led the negative response with a focus on the fact that the Governor had a nice sounding message but delivered it out of context. His avoidance of saying anything about how the state should pay for his recommendations was particularly offensive to almost all legislators. This was particularly upsetting to those who voted for tax adjustments last year in efforts to start addressing the fiscal crisis tied to the failed Brownback tax experiment.

So where are we? First let us look back to last year for a moment. As you know, very significant progress was made that included overriding the Governor’s veto on a tax plan that took a significant step in restoring much needed funds. The downside was that it was not enough to fund a reasonably full recovery. Too many legislators, as well as special interest groups, were a little too anxious to get anything close to what is needed. In the process, they likely left some important resources on the table that could have lessened the existing fiscal pressure.

Despite the progress, the Kansas Supreme Court has made it clear that even with the additional funding, it is not adequate. Their position is based on their interpretation of the Kansas Constitution regarding the state’s role in funding public education. Additionally, those who have never supported increasing education resources will be pressing for a Constitutional amendment that basically takes the Court out of any jurisdiction on school funding. Given the required ⅔ vote from both Houses, that is unlikely to happen.

Next are the political realities. Last year’s progress on school funding and the budget was clearly a heavy lift. Now we are in an election year, with the entire House up for re-election. Also, it is easy to assume that whatever tax bill reaches the Governor's desk, regardless of who is Governor, will be vetoed. There were no extra votes in last year's override. Given that fact, the likelihood of a repeat in 2018 is very slim. In addition, why would all the newly-elected members who were there for the 2017 override vote for another tax bill that, logic says, will not pass?      

So where does all of this leave us? At the moment, I see no traditional answer to this constitutional crisis. My dream would be a Supreme Court that is willing to talk privately to legislative leaders from both parties about the realities that they face. Then, out of that, would come a compromise that spreads the mandated funding increase over a reasonable period of time. This might allow the money that became available from last year’s effort to be adequate to meet the first year’s commitment and then begin down a multi-year path towards meeting our constitutional commitment to public education. Although, I understand when your response is “dream on.”

In my last blog, which reviewed the six plus years of the Brownback Administration, the final major point was the damage done to the civil service system. I want to follow up on that because there is more to the story, and understanding this in some depth is very important as we move forward with efforts to restore our state in the wake of these damaging years for Kansas. Without a clear comprehension of what happened with the civil service system and the consequences of those decisions, there will be little opportunity to gain the support necessary for positive action.

This problem was underlined recently when I was helping Lynn’s mother get her handicapped license renewed. We got her a handicapped parking permit when she moved here to Manhattan three years ago. In reality, she has done so well she has almost never used it. But when renewal time came, we decided to re-up, and I was given that responsibility. My first move was to go out east of town to the State Motor Vehicle License facility. I made it no further than just inside the door to learn, with the room packed at mid-afternoon, that there was no way they could take care of me that day. I came back earlier the next day to another jammed room, but lucky for me, I thought when I signed in I should make sure I was in the right place. I wasn’t. I needed to go to the county treasurer’s office at the courthouse, which I did. Now, stick with me, for I’m about to get to the point.

At the state facility, it was obvious that one needed to allow plenty of time, hours not minutes, to get a driver's license new or renewed. This was not because of state employees not doing their job, but because with the budget cuts from the Brownback administration, they were short the staff they needed to serve the public in an efficient way that was respectful of Kansans’ valuable time. At the county courthouse, service was efficient and professional, and I was in and out in no time. It appears that our local officials fund services conservatively but adequate to do the job in an effective manner. And I know this is but a small, personal example of what happens to countless Kansans on a daily basis.

The key message here is that getting the state back to quality service will not be easy, and it will take time. It is not just restoring professionalism by repealing the Brownback spoils system, providing stability to the state employee retirement system, and opening up our state workforce to a wider and more diverse talent pool, but also finding resources to better staff needed functions. Examples include twelve hour shifts at state prisons, way under-staffed Children Services, and just recently, the Kansas Bureau Investigation reports they are 25 staff members below what they need to efficiently work with local officials investigating crimes. Unfortunately, for far-right conservatives, starving the government is a key strategy because the underfunded agency will perform at a lower level of quality, providing the evidence they'll use to make the case for privatization or more tightening of the budget.

Again, a reminder to all the folks who love tax cuts. Yes, it appears you are paying lower taxes because of decisions made, but are they really lower? You still pay taxes (and an increasing amount of fees for government services, which is also a form of taxation), and the declines in service do have an impact—​in many cases, far greater than if the services would have been properly funded from the beginning. Whether that is addressing maintenance needs in a timely fashion or seeing that a vulnerable child is taken care of, not doing these things will ultimately cost much, much more.

With the date set for Governor Brownback’s confirmation hearing (October 4th), we in Kansas have the opportunity to look back on his six plus years as Governor. Below are my reflections on the lasting impacts of his time in office and some thoughts on where we, as a state, go from here.

What we got from Governor Brownback was not quite what we expected. Much changed between the time he was Secretary of Agriculture and Governor. He went from being quite likable and non-controversial to being a very polarizing figure. His leadership approach was certainly not built on bringing people of different persuasions together. Not only did he change religions but, philosophically, he went from reasonably moderate to extreme right.

His policy mistakes were many but none more puzzling than his systematic destruction of the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). What was at one time the darling of legislators across the board (created with bipartisan support in 2004) was now being trashed. Truth was not important and philosophical positions were often quite bizarre. None was more puzzling than his stance against picking winners and losers. He disliked that the KBA worked hard to make the wisest investments for the best interest of Kansas. He preferred that we invest the money without considering the likelihood of success. I think the Bible talks about putting the seeds where they can grow and not on the rocks.

His lack of support for all levels of public education is another example of his move to the far right, which favors private education. This dramatic change of position was totally new for Kansas. Proud of our public school system, most Kansans took for granted that the support from most public officials would be strong. With big money from private donors and other public school opponents, a push to support private education took place—​more often and in new, different ways. This includes an assault on our judicial system to change the way we select judges in Kansas, in order to push the policies that these monied interest groups favored.

In his run for re-election, he loved to promise of his support for very much needed highway improvements. He was comfortable endorsing specific projects but never sharing on how they might be funded. Given he robbed extensively from the highway fund to avoid Kansas going broke, maybe that is understandable. Historically, highway maintenance and improvements had strong support from both sides of the isle, but not under this Governor.

As puzzling as anything was his adamant opposition to Medicaid expansion. Kansans were paying for it but not getting it. Despite many Republican Governors accepting the dollars and significant support from Kansas citizens, he stood his ground. The result was pain inflicted on large numbers of Kansans as well as the financial viability of many, particularly rural, community hospitals and nursing homes.

But maybe the most damaging mistake over time will be his lack of support for, and his meat ax approach to, the civil service system and public service in general. I say that because it may take a generation or more to restore the quality state workforce we once had. With the Governor's recommendation and the Legislature’s support, now when a civil service employee leaves the system the position automatically becomes political, bringing back in essence the spoils system that most of us thought was a thing of the past.

The story of the past six years will be about a Governor who sowed the seeds of political division in Kansas. From his all-out attacks on members of his own party, to his blatant disregard for opposing views of any kind, Governor Brownback leveraged a big money machine to turn our state into a petri dish for far-right policy and an extremist approach to governing. This is a far cry from the Kansas that many of us have known and loved.

What will happen to our state as a result of the Brownback years remains to be seen, and it will largely be up to us to decide. Kansans of all political stripes have certainly been activated. And, so far, there are signs that we may learn our lessons from these divisive and damaging years for our state and begin to put Kansas back on the right track by bringing people together around the solutions to our largely self-created challenges. The path forward will not be easy, and there is certainly a lot of work to do. But perhaps the next chapter can be the most exciting and impressive one yet: a state turning the page on division and building a model for how to come together, engage, and overcome the disastrous results left behind by these difficult years for Kansas.

The November 8th election left us with some bright spots and also made clear some of the challenges our state and country will face moving forward. Looking back on the outcomes, I intentionally waited, giving myself some time to reflect and get over what was disappointing. I wanted to get in a frame of mind that is ready to move forward, by building off of what was successful and learning from what didn’t work. On the successes, I want to thank and give credit to the thousands of you who read and, I believe, acted on the challenge to influence others and advance the conversation on issues. Your work helped make the difference on the retention of Judges as well as provided the opportunity to improve the quality and problem solving capacity of the Kansas Legislature. The positive results are very significant, and you deserve credit and gratitude. And, going forward, your voice will be more important than ever.

We have sent a powerful message that the people of Kansas like merit selection and do not want any Governor to have too much power in selecting future Justices or Judges. In the process, we have held off a move where the blatant use of politics and money would have controlled the Judiciary. What we have been proud of, an independent and equally powerful Judiciary, will continue adding to sixty years of success.  

As a result of this year's primary and general elections, we now will have a legislature, particularly in the House, that will be much more in tune with the people and issues that need to be addressed. A coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats will, at the very least, be able to stop crazy things that in the past made it to the Governor for signature. As we look towards the 2017 Legislative Session, there are a host of issues that will need immediate and sustained attention. On the policy front, this blog post from Duane Goossen, "Rise Up, Kansas" lays out some of the important places to start and points to an upcoming policy roll-out event that will take place next month at the Capitol.

On the engagement side, one way you can continue to help out going forward is to share with me in your comments, your observations of both the campaigns for retention and individual legislative races. I want to know what you think worked and what didn’t. Does the candidate and/or supporters going door to door impact your vote? Were the postcards and mailers effective? Did getting so many make a positive impact? Did the use of digital ads showing up online have impact? What about taped robo calls versus live calls? I want to know whatever you can share that might be helpful going forward. Knowing what works can really make a difference.

I will have more to say as time passes as to what the decisions of November 8th will mean for Kansas, including the Presidency and how it will impact our state and nation. In the meantime, please consider sharing this message and any feedback you have that can assist in future efforts to bring change to Kansas.

As I hope many Kansans know, there is an organized and heavily financed effort to throw out four of the five Justices up for retention on the Kansas Supreme Court and six Judges on the Court of Appeals. Frustrated by the Court supporting the Kansas Constitution on proper funding of public education, the effort is driven by special interests who see an opportunity to lock the courts into a far, far right position for as many as thirty years. Our current system of selecting judges based upon merit has served us well for sixty years. The retention clause in our system is there as a safeguard but, fortunately, has never been needed. We have a 100% record of retaining our Judges because the current merit system has brought quality and balance to the bench.

So if the system is so good, what really is the problem? First, the Kansas Legislature, working with the Governor, successfully changed the law for the appointment of Court of Appeals Judges. They moved away from merit selection to allowing the Governor to appoint whomever he wants, subject to Senate confirmation. Second, the merit selection system for the Supreme Court is now in control of the Governor. He has made four citizen appointments to the nine member Merit Selection Commission and, by neglect of the Kansas Bar allowed, in essence, the appointment of the fifth and final lawyer to chair and have control of the Commission.

The Carr brothers case out of Wichita, one of the most gruesome multiple murder cases in Kansas, is being used to drive emotions and create opposition to retention. This happened in 2000, and there has never been any doubt the brothers were guilty. They were sentenced to death. As is usual, the long delay in carrying out the death penalty has made a very painful path to closure for the family and friends of the victims. The dispute between our Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court was over a technicality, but there has never been any doubt that the Carr brothers will die on death row.

The bottom line and key point is: why would we oppose retention when opposition is totally unjustified? The current Justices have a superb record. They are not opposed to the death penalty, as some charge. They have upheld the constitutionality of the Act on several occasions, including recently with the Robinson case. But the major thing to know, understand, and spread is that if special interest groups are successful in throwing out these judges, it will politicize the courts and assure that merit selection will be replaced by money and political influence. We will leave behind our historical fairness where individual citizens' rights are protected, free from the influence of money and political pressure. VOTE YES ON RETENTION.

In the coming days, our efforts or lack thereof will determine the future of Kansas for decades to come. After years of frustrating, unfair, and short-sighted policies from Topeka, the people of Kansas have only a few days left to make their point and have their voices heard on the direction of the state. There are key decisions to be made in both the legislative and judicial branches of government on this year’s ballot, and voters statewide will need to know their alternatives and realize just what’s at stake in each race. In many cases, it comes down to voters deciding whether to approve or reject the current actions and direction of each branch. With the help of the executive branch—​the administration of Governor Brownback—​the Kansas Legislature has been the source of extreme and experimental policies that puzzle the common sense voter, defy our long history of balanced policy and consensus-building leadership, and make a laughing stock out of the state that many of us know and love. Meanwhile, the Kansas Judicial Branch has been working to uphold the Kansas Constitution and, despite the best efforts of the other two branches, maintain their standing as an independent third branch of government, separate from partisan politics. From looking at the direction of each, I believe it’s easy to see why we need to bring change to the legislative branch and keep the judicial branch exactly the way it is.

Here is where you come into play. It starts with sorting out the good from the bad and deciding who to support. There are many ways to make your choice, but first do your own investigation. You can look into the candidates through local news media or events in your area where you can hear from the candidates directly. You can also check out a number of organizations partnering with the Save Kansas Coalition who have published questionnaires or made endorsements (such as Game on For Kansas Schools and Women For Kansas), and you will likely find them agreeing on which candidates would work towards solving problems in a cooperative, bipartisan way. Or you could look for the candidate who favors the status quo and the current direction, by investigating who the State Chamber endorses, and then I’d advise you to give strong consideration to their opponent. This special interest group backed all the legislators who partnered with the Governor to damage our schools, our infrastructure, our rural hospitals, our judicial system, and unfortunately, the list could go on. Now they're working to lead a barrage of false and misleading attacks on quality candidates and the qualified Judges and Justices of the Kansas Judicial Branch.

After determining who to support, what can each and every one of us do to help quality candidates win on November 8th? Whether through valuable volunteer hours, financial support, or other voter outreach and education, there are a number of ways to get involved, and there is a role for everyone in this process. First, candidates always need good volunteers in order to have an army of support in the closing weeks that will help offset the overwhelming money advantage the opposition has. Just a few hours spent contacting voters, knocking on doors, or attending events can help reach people and get everyone out to vote. Go out and enjoy the camaraderie of being with others and supporting a cause you care about; it’s a great example of civic engagement wherein each and every citizen can make a real difference. If you’re able to provide it, monetary support is also something that candidates will need to help offset the millions coming from special interests, much of it from out of state. In this internet age, it is easy to find where to donate online, send a check, or attend an upcoming fundraiser. And, as proven recently by the Bernie Sanders campaign, even small contributions can make a big impact. Finally, as you make your decision on who to support, it is important to help others along in this process. For those who have followed the recent events at the statehouse, the decisions are often very clear, but people are busy and there are many eligible voters out there who may be looking into these issues for the first time. This makes any efforts to reach family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors with information on these important decisions absolutely critical. Remember: many of these races will come down to each and every vote.

Important Dates to Know:
October 18th - The final day to register to Vote in Kansas. Check your registration status here, and make sure everyone you know is registered by this day!
October 19th - Most Advanced Ballots are mailed if you've already submitted an application to your County Clerk. Early voting in-person will also begin in many Kansas counties, check with your local County Clerk for details about early voting in your county!
November 4th - The final day to register for an Advanced Ballot by Mail. The application form is due to the County Clerk in the county you'll be voting in (see the second page of the form for their contact information).
November 7th - Advanced voting in-person ends on this day. Check with your County Clerk to find information about in-person opportunities to vote early before this day!
November 8th - Election Day! Most polls are open from 7am to 7pm at your local precinct location, find your polling place here. All Advanced Ballots by Mail are also due by the close of polls on Election Day.

We have reached the “home stretch” of this election year, and your engagement can make all the difference. The future of Kansas depends on it.

​Hopefully, former Kansas Governors traveling the state in the last two days on this issue has caught your attention. Four of the five living former Governors, two Republicans and two Democrats (Governor Parkinson had a conflict but is supportive), have come together to speak out on the huge importance of retaining the five Supreme Court Justices up for a vote come November 8th. I trust you understand that we wouldn’t be doing this if it was anything close to a “toss-up” issue. It is critical that Kansas voters cast their ballots to maintain the integrity of our Judicial branch and defend it from partisan politics.

The question on the ballot will be whether you, as a voter, want to individually retain each of the five Justices up for retention. Retention is part of the time-tested judicial selection process that is currently under attack in Kansas. Having an option, in extraordinary cases, where removal is possible obviously makes sense. We do have mandatory retirement, so judicial appointments are not for life. What is different in this particular election is the organized effort to remove all but one, in appearance, based almost exclusively on one case handled by the court. But here is the real issue. What the opponents of retention really want, and why so much money will be thrown at this from special interests, is for Governor Brownback to have the opportunity to appoint five of the seven members of the Supreme Court, packing the court with far-right conservative judges. What does that mean for us? It means we will have an extreme approach, totally foreign to what we have experienced in Kansas for decades. There will no longer be push-back when a Legislature and a Governor refuse to properly fund public education. There are good reasons that our Kansas “Founding Fathers” put public education as a priority into our Kansas Constitution, but a far-right court has the power to neuter that charge.

Here is the broader case for retention. The judicial system we have in Kansas has worked in a very satisfactory way for decades, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Why is this the case? First of all, we have an excellent system of screening and providing Governor’s with a quality list of three candidates from which to select. This is true for not just the Supreme Court, but also for the Court of Appeals and appointed District Judges. Screening commissions are made up of appointments from the Kansas Bar Association as well as appointments from the Governor. For me and my former Governor colleagues, it was important to not just appoint high quality men and women to screening commissions but to also, without interference, let them do their job. Merit has dominated the selection process and it is why our system has had such a good reputation. That is, until the Brownback Administration, when the strategy became obvious to stack the court with right wing idealogues holding complete loyalty to the Governor and his agenda.

From a political point of view, if retention fights become the norm, it puts Judges in an untenable situation. How do they defend themselves? Do we want Judges to have to raise money to literally campaign for retention? If we start throwing out Justices over say one controversial case, how can this approach do anything but lower the quality of justice for all? Not only will highly qualified future candidates think longer about leaving a successful law practice, but worse yet, Justices, being human, may start calculating in the issue of retention as they decide cases. All of this runs counter to the purpose of an equal and independent branch of government to “check and balance” the other branches.

Contrast our current and successful judicial selection system with states where, historically, politics dominate and money has a huge influence on who makes it to the bench. You have not only a different system, but one that does not serve the real interest of the public and the state. Consider here in Kansas, Governors have seldom if ever issued a pardon to any convicted felon. At the same time, in states like Arkansas, the pardons are in the thousands. There, the Governor is literally the court of last resort in a state where money and politics have basically corrupted the system. This is not the future we want for Kansas, and I was glad to join four former Governors this week to share a message on how we, the people, can fight back. Vote for retention, and if this message resonates, please pass it along.

​The results of Tuesday’s Primary are in, and the message is clear: Kansas voters are ready to get our state back on course. The opposition from Republicans against their party’s extremist legislators indicates that they’re ready for a change of direction. In the most visible and critical contests, new candidates won almost every race, adding more common sense and moderation to the Kansas Legislature and giving the state a new vision for the future. From Western Kansas to Johnson County, there will be new faces in the legislature and new problem solvers to begin the hard work of undoing the damage done by Governor Brownback and his legislative allies.

We knew August 2nd would be a critical benchmark day, and there are several important things to take away from it as we go forward. Obviously, this was one huge step toward returning Kansas to times of balance and sound decisions—under the consensus-building leadership of both Republicans and Democrats. Now the focus turns toward the November 8th General Election, where this coalition has the opportunity to build on the gains made in the Primary. With that in mind, now is an important time to mention that our friends with the Kansas Chamber of Commerce (etc.) and their wealthy backers will have had their reality check and will likely return—with more money and more misleading attempts to convince you that their experiment is working and “the sun is still shining in Kansas.” Fortunately, we now have proof that Kansas voters know better, but this makes the effort to continue reaching out and educating our fellow citizens even more important. It will be incumbent upon all the backers of quality candidates and real solutions to our challenges to double down and make the most of every campaign day. We have witnessed some dark days throughout the past few years, but with the help of many committed Kansans, the light of a new day can shine brightly all across our state.

The key contests in November will depend much more on the success of Democratic candidates in uniting people from across the political spectrum around this vision for a better future. In these races, there is a real opportunity to bring together the rational conservative voters, who value fiscal responsibility and support wise investments in our future, with Democratic and Independent voters, to reject the failed policies of the past, look beyond party labels, and bring change on behalf of the people of Kansas—not just the monied interests that got us where we are today in the first place. The quality of the candidates is certainly there, and I've been very impressed with their passion and commitment. The rest is up to us, the voters, to stay engaged and get involved.

For me, Tuesday’s results are a reflection of citizen concern about all the harmful decisions that have been coming from Topeka and, most importantly, a realization that concerned folks needed to do more than just complain. I see it reflected as well in the armies of grassroots support that many sound, moderate candidates have been able to assemble. The unified concern for restoring our constitutional commitment to public education, sustainably addressing the fiscal crisis, maintaining our infrastructure, securing the role of an independent judiciary, and rising to meet our many other challenges has been truly inspirational. Now, we just need more Kansans to join this cause. And, once again, I urge readers who are ready for a change of course to share this message and/or actively seek opportunities to prepare your friends and neighbors to vote for a continuation of the momentum we established in the Primary. What we do between now and November will decide the future of our state.

Following the Legislature in Special Session last Friday certainly kept me busy with my Twitter account. For most of the day, it appeared it was going to take some time to solve the immediate challenge of funding schools in Kansas at an equitable level, as deemed by the Kansas Constitution. Then suddenly out of the blue, they not only got the votes needed but almost unanimous votes in both houses. They got done in two days what had to be done in the short term. It could have taken ten, and I would not have been surprised. Given the court's response today, it appears the immediate crisis has been momentarily satisfied. So does this mean sanity suddenly returned to the Legislature during the Special Session? Unfortunately, the short answer is "no," but nonetheless, there were some important things we can take away from the two days of turmoil we witnessed last week.

First, it’s important to remember that the Special Session was only convened to address the equity portion of the lawsuit, yet to come is a decision on whether the funding levels of Kansas schools are constitutionally adequate. This means that more important decisions loom next year, when a more sustainable fix will be required. So what did we learn from this Special Session about the incumbents who will be seeking the opportunity to make these crucial decisions for our state, and what kind of representation will be required in order to get it right?

To me, an obvious takeaway from the Special Session is that, for one of the very few times, the ideas and leadership of moderate Republicans and Democrats were taken seriously. The interesting question is: why? From what I have learned, the pro-education legislators had done their homework and were better prepared to propose something that would work. Helping this might have been the desire of the current leadership to avoid more bad publicity and get their folks home to raise money and campaign. In this case, confirming “why” is not as important as what we, as voters, should do as a result of this. It’s critical that we take this as further incentive to review carefully our choices in the coming elections, and that we see there is a better way forward—one that’s possible through the election of more consensus-building problem solvers to the legislature.
​
It’s also important that the legislature avoided, in the end, doing anything really outlandish during the Special Session. The only non-essential issue raised was the leadership’s constitutional amendment introduced to take the Supreme Court, (for now) an equal branch of government, out of any power to impact adequate and appropriate funding of public schools. Fortunately, for the sake of Kansas and public education, it failed by one vote to receive the ⅔ vote necessary for passage, going down to defeat in the State Senate. Along with eight Democrats, six Republican Senators stood up to the pressure of the Senate leadership and voted for public education. Come August 2nd and November 8th, if you live in any of these fourteen Senate districts and you want quality public schools, good judgment, and courage, you have your candidate to support. If you live in one of the other twenty-six Senate districts (or a House district held by someone who supports the direction of the current administration), electing different representation, regardless of party affiliation, will be needed in order to defend Kansas schools from further attacks, unconstitutional actions, and short-sighted policies.

​Truly restoring sanity will require many steps over the course of several election cycles and legislative sessions. But it's imperative that we make significant strides along that path during this election year and sustain that momentum in the years to come.

“What the Hell is Wrong With Kansas” was the title of a joint presentation that Governor Mike Hayden and I made in Wichita on Saturday, at a forum sponsored by Women for Kansas. The effort highlighted some of the serious issues facing our state and, in the process, made the point that the concern wasn’t just coming from one political party. Kansans of all political stripes—​Republican, Democratic, and Independent—​have real policy differences with the Governor and those in the legislature who made his agenda a reality in our state. This is what prompted Governor Hayden—​a conservative—​and myself to speak out together on the desperate need to change directions in Kansas.

In our presentation, we discussed just how much has changed in the political environment in the years since we each left office—​from the decline in civility, to the increased impact of special interest money, and the viciousness and extremism of our politics. Of course there were very strong differences when each of us served in the legislature and the governor’s office. But the fight then was always over how best to serve Kansas, knowing that we had to wisely invest in education, take care of our infrastructure, and provide help to our citizens most in need. Throughout our history, our approach to solving problems has been straightforward: we listened to each other, clarified our differences, and reached compromises that wisely served the people of Kansas.

Fortunately, the proud past I just described isn’t ancient history—in fact, it’s far from it. This August and November, the people of Kansas have an opportunity to restore this common sense approach by electing more problem solvers to the legislature. And that spirit of collaboration and compromise for the common good is alive and well among the many courageous individuals—both citizens and public servants—who are working (or will join the effort) to turn things around. It’s critical that voters understand the importance of being informed on the challenges we face and that they know which candidates would serve their real interests. In order to accomplish this, volunteers and supporters will need to work purposefully every day to make sure that their personal networks—and their neighbors—are ready to vote for a change of course.

The first benchmark day will be August 2nd, where the Primary Election will decide a number of key seats in both the House and Senate. That will be the first opportunity to send a clear message—​around the state and to the nation—​that we’re getting back on track, that the failed tax experiment will be brought to an end, and that the long tradition of sane, forward-thinking policy is on its way back to Kansas.

Fortunately, for the moment, Kansas has received a stay on the elimination of our historically sound method for selecting Kansas Supreme Court Justices. This is thanks to the Democrats and Moderate Republicans in the House of Representatives. We have only time now to catch our breath before the war on sanity continues down the path to potential destruction of our beloved state of Kansas. I know some of you are probably wondering, why the strong language? The simple answer is: I’m not exaggerating.

Last week, the Kansas Supreme Court handed down their decision on school finance, declaring the block grant approach put in place by Governor Brownback and his allies in the Legislature unconstitutional. This led to all sides putting the gloves on and signalling no backing down, including a rumor that the Legislature just might call the court’s bluff and leave town without doing the work required of them by our constitution. Keep in mind that current legislative leaders and the Governor were already at odds with the members of the Supreme Court and are now being ordered to do school finance right or they will shut down the school system, this is like high noon at the OK Corral.

To put this in a bigger picture, all of the above is happening in an election year where the entire Legislature is up for election and five of the seven Supreme Court Justices are up for retention vote in November. For the first time in our history, our judicial system—​built on the concept of being one of three equal branches of the government—​is facing potential for devastating results with huge impacts on the funding of public education. Key will be the public’s understanding of the importance of these events and their ability to accurately assess whether their legislators served their interest. Put another way, will they vote for legislative candidates who support the Kansas Constitution and the proper funding of public education?

​There will be more to share on this and also the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court as the year goes on towards Election Day on November 8th. But, for now, it’s safe to say—​at both the state and national level—​the judiciary will play a bigger role in this year’s election season conversation than perhaps any point in our history.