Three lawsuits confirm that Kansas lawmakers concocted menacing attacks on civil rights
In their apparent eagerness to save money and do right by taxpayers, perhaps Kansas Republican leaders could try passing laws that don't trample on the rights of their constituents.
That's my only response to lawsuits filed throughout May that highlight the downright sloppy lawmaking that has become a hallmark of our state's rushed, secretive legislative session. Bills are introduced and rubber-stamped in committee, testimony from experts is ignored, and the House and Senate send them through with nary a speed bump.
Afterward, the taxpayers of Kansas have to foot the bill for any carelessness.
Let's take a quick look at the lawsuits and their subjects. Up first, Kansas Reflector editor in chief Sherman Smith, who reported the following May 28.
Two transgender teenagers and their parents are challenging a new Kansas law that bans gender-affirming care for minors.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the national ACLU filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Douglas County District Court on behalf of a 16-year-old trans boy and a 13-year-old trans girl. The lawsuit argues the new law violates state constitutional rights for equal protection, personal autonomy and parenting.
Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from using surgery, hormones or puberty blockers to treat anyone younger than 18 who identifies with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. Health care providers who break the law may be subject to civil penalties and stripped of their license.
You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here.
Next, Reflector reporter Anna Kaminski wrote about another lawsuit on May 19.
A Kansas reproductive rights advocacy group, backed by a Washington, D.C., law firm, sued state officials over a new law banning financial contributions from 'foreign nationals' to support or oppose constitutional amendments.
The group, Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, argued in a complaint filed in federal court Friday that House Bill 2106, which passed the Legislature in April and is set to go into effect July 1, is broad, vague and unconstitutional. The group said the bill inhibits its ability to advocate for or against future constitutional amendments. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom and its donors have received contributions from foreign nationals, the lawsuit said.
The complaint drew a connection between HB 2106 and opposition to the 2022 ballot measure that sought to limit reproductive rights. Voters rejected the proposed constitutional amendment by a 59-41 margin.
You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here.
But wait, there's still more! Here's senior reporter Morgan Chilson on May 6.
Three advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit Monday in Douglas County District Court challenging the Kansas Legislature's attempt to 'arbitrarily' reject advance ballots of voters if the mail system fails to deliver them by Election Day.
Kansas Appleseed, Loud Light and Disability Rights Center of Kansas are asking the court to find Senate Bill 4 unconstitutional. Defendants are Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew.
SB 4, which the Legislature passed this year, disqualifies any mail-in ballots not received by 7 p.m. on Election Day. Previously, mail-in ballots were counted if they were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within three days later.
You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here.
We covered all of these proposals at various stages, from twinkles in legislators' eyes to enshrinement in the statute books. Leaders sent the anti-trans bill to Gov. Laura Kelly as their first act of business in the 2025 session. She allowed the foreign nationals ban to become law without her signature and a warning that it 'went too far.' The advance-voting bill was called 'pure partisan politics' by former Rep. Ann Mah.
Sure, the deluge of wastewater emanating from the Statehouse in 2025 may have overwhelmed at times. But none of this should have come as a surprise.
If people or groups believe the government has infringed on their rights — to medical care, to advocacy, to voting — no one can be surprised if they bring legal action. When senators and representatives cast votes on such issues, they decide whether the state should place a barrier in front of the people they represent. No amount of victim blaming or sanctimonious claptrap obscures the truth.
Defending the laws falls to Attorney General Kris Kobach and his office. Who pays their salaries? You and me and all the people of Kansas. We're all on the hook for legislative foolishness.
The state may win some or all of these suits. So may those who filed them. Regardless, their mere presence suggests that our elected officials tread far too easily into the swamps of ideological overreaction. Rather than representing all, they have bowed and scraped in service to a hateful few.
We will see the consequences play out before judges in the months ahead.
Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump to GOP holdouts before megabill advanced: ‘What are you trying to prove???'
President Trump urged Republican holdouts overnight to vote to advance his massive policy legislation, asking what they're 'trying to prove' by withholding support. 'Largest Tax Cuts in History and a Booming Economy vs. Biggest Tax Increase in History, and a Failed Economy,' Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform shortly after midnight Thursday. 'What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove???' he continued. 'MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!' A half hour later, the president added: 'FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE. RIDICULOUS!!!' The rule on what could be a legacy-defining piece of legislation for Trump finally advanced in the lower chamber after 3 a.m. EDT. Heading into the vote, conservatives had warned that they would sink the procedural measure unless it was delayed beyond Wednesday. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called their bluff, held the vote open for more than five hours and then adopted the rule after winning enough support — an effort that got a big boost from Trump, who spoke with some of the holdouts during the long, midnight impasse. Leadership initially called the vote on the rule minutes after the president pressured Republicans to move the megabill forward Wednesday night. 'It looks like the House is ready to vote tonight. We had GREAT conversations all day, and the Republican House Majority is UNITED, for the Good of our Country, delivering the Biggest Tax Cuts in History and MASSIVE Growth,' Trump wrote shortly after 9 p.m. 'Let's go Republicans, and everyone else — MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' he added. After more than five hours, all eight Republicans who initially hadn't voted either way ended up voting for the rule, and four Republicans flipped their votes. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) — one of three House Republicans whose districts voted for Vice President Harris in 2024 — was the sole remaining 'no' vote on the rule. Final passage on the legislation is expected at 8 or 8:30 a.m. EDT on Thursday, according to Johnson.


CNBC
40 minutes ago
- CNBC
Tax bill will 'sterilize' some of the negative impacts of Trump's tariffs: Strategas' Dan Clifton
Dan Clifton, Strategas head of policy research, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the House vote on President Trump's megabill, details of the tax bill impact on the U.S. economy, state of U.S. trade negotiations, and more.


Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
"Big, beautiful bill" gives some seniors hefty tax break
The " big, beautiful bill" features a new tax break for older Americans who pay taxes on Social Security income. But there's a significant catch. Why it matters: The break leaves out the poorest seniors, and the very rich ones, too. How it works: Both the House and Senate bills include an increased tax deduction for tax filers age 64 and older. In the Senate version, the new deduction is $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples. The deduction starts phasing out for those who earn over $75,000 ($150,000 for couples), and phases out completely at $175,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, in the Senate version. The break expires in 2028 when President Trump leaves office, as do a few other White House priorities in the bills, including no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on auto loan interest. What they're saying: "This amounts to the largest tax break in American history for our nation's seniors," per a report out earlier this week from the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Yes, but: Most seniors — 64% of them — don't pay taxes on Social Security, according to the White House's own analysis. Those who can't afford the taxes already don't pay. This break targets most, but not all, of the rest. Between the lines: Trump promised to eliminate taxes on Social Security income. Lawmakers couldn't pull that off entirely, given the constraints of passing a reconciliation bill and changing Social Security law. This break comes close. After adding the recipients of the new tax break, 88% of seniors wouldn't pay Social Security tax, per the White House. "The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers on President Trump's promise of no tax on Social Security," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson says in a statement, noting the analysis by the Council of Economic Advisers. Zoom out: For those upper-middle class folks who pay taxes on retirement benefits, this is a "substantial tax break," says Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates for fiscal responsibility. For the several million senior citizens who live in poverty, and already don't pay taxes on Social Security, this doesn't help. The bill would also accelerate Social Security and Medicare insolvency by a year, to 2032, per an analysis from the group. The bottom line: Seniors in the U.S. overall are doing great financially right now, sitting on assets that have soared in value in recent years.