By Deanna Ambrose
KU Statehouse Wire Service
TOPEKA — Kansas counties want more protection to determine their own laws, also known as home rule. A proposed constitutional amendment, HCR 5004, would grant counties increased protection of their current powers, which are currently held at the legislative level, not the constitutional level.
The Federal and State Affairs Committee met Tuesday to hear testimony on two items, the most heavily debated was the proposed amendment.
Home rule allows counties to withdraw from state laws that they don’t agree with if the laws only apply to specific population sizes or specific counties. The current law is not written in the constitution, so the legislature could revoke home-rule by passing a bill. With constitutional protection, home rule could only be revoked with a two-thirds majority in chambers of the state legislature and a majority of Kansas voters. Cities already have home rule constitutional protection.
Kansas Farm Bureau representative Allie Devine opposed the bill, saying counties could move quickly on regulations without sound scientific counsel, which could damage the state’s financial situation.
“So what we’re worried about… is issues that may be coming, where a county acts before the state and investors and businesses seek to work with those (regulations), only to find out the rules change later,” Devine said. “That’s a problem, and we’ve already experienced it.”
The Kansas Association of Counties, which represents all 105 counties, testified in support of the proposed amendment. Riley County was the only county represented at the hearing. County Commissioner Ron Wells said he supported the amendment because of concerns for institutions in Riley County that set it apart from other counties, including Fort Riley and Kansas State University.
“As a county commissioner, all I want is the same protections, or same rights that the cities have, which is granted to them by Kansas,” Wells said.
Aaron Popelka, the Kansas Livestock Association’s vice president of legal and governmental affairs, testified that the bill grants excessive authority to the counties, removes a key oversight function of the legislature and endangers individual property rights.
Popelka included examples of county overreach in which the state intervened. He said the proposed amendment would only embolden counties further and prevent landowners from seeking help from the state.
“This really is a solution in search of a problem. No one can name a specific reason why we need this. We just kind of want it someday,” Popelka said.
Riley County Counselor Clancy Holeman said the opposition had good questions that he had anticipated, about issues such as agricultural regulation and state statutes that may or may not be uniformly enforced. He said his client, Riley County, would be happy to preserve the original statutes.
“It’s to give constitutional protection to that home-rule authority; the same constitutional protection cities now have, counties ought to have,” Holeman said. “It’s just a matter of logic and consistency.”
Deanna Ambrose is a University of Kansas senior journalism major from Frankfort.