Attended or participated in:
03/23          Appointed to Governor’s Education Council.
04/09          Legislative Update presentation to Hays Lions Club. (Hays)
04/09          Kansas Supreme Court Hearings. (Colby)
04/16          First meeting of the Education Council. Assigned to the Workforce Inventory Sub-Committee. (Topeka)
04/21          Presentation to Options Inc.on legislation pertaining to domestic violence. (Hays)
05/04          Adjournment of the 2018 Legislative Session. (Topeka)

05/11          Fort Hays State University Spring Commencement (Friday Ceremony) (Hays)
05/12          Fort Hays State University Spring Commencement (Saturday Ceremony) (Hays)
06/07          Legislative Update presentation at Hays Senior Center. (Hays)
06/11          Workforce Inventory sub-committee meeting (Topeka)
06/21          Kansas Water Office Meeting re:R-9 Ranch change of use permit. (Greensburg)
06/22          Hays Arts Council Summer Gallery Walk.(Downtown Hays)

Upcoming:
06/26          Governor’s Education Council Meeting. (Topeka)
06/28          Hays Area Chamber of Commerce Luncheon. (Rose Garden)
07/07          Wild West Festival Parade. (Downtown Hays)
07/14-21     Ellis County Fair. (Ellis County Fairgrounds)
07/26          Hays Senior Companion recognition program. (Hays)
08/03/4       Herzogfest (Victoria)

Over the past couple of weeks, the Kansas Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court have ruled on a number of significant cases that will, or have the potential to, greatly impact our communities and state’s budget.

• The Kansas Supreme Court committed to rule on the Gannon v. Kansas school funding case before the end of this fiscal year (June 30). The new ruling was released on Monday, June 25.
• South Dakota v. Wayfair deals with how online retailers handle sales tax, and
• Murphy v. NCAA could allow sports betting in states who so choose.

SCHOOL FINANCE – GANNON V. KANSAS
I have provided a brief overview of the points made by both sides of the case, those in favor (State) and those opposed to (Plaintiff Districts/Gannon) the most recent school finance formula passed by the Legislature during the 2018 legislative session. Reading those briefs will help provide context to the court’s ruling, which I have summed up below:

Though the court did not find the school funding formula to be constitutional, schools will open on July 1, but that the Legislature has until April 15, 2019 to resolve issues identified by the court. The equity components of the 2018 bill were found to be ok, but the funding levels need to be adjusted in order to comply with the legislature’s metrics for measuring educational standards. Below I have highlighted specific funding concerns addressed by the court:

• The legislature utilizes the Rose Capacities to measure the educational outcomes of Kansas students, which provides a specific amount required to meet that level of attainment, which was not reached in the 2018 bill.
• Inflation was a key issue that wasn’t properly addressed in the 2018 bill, which states that inflation would be accounted for beginning in 2023. The legislature is tasked with adjusting the funding to account for inflation for the years 2018-2023 as well.
• “Excess costs” refer to the cost difference between educating a “general education” student and a “special education” student, which is supposed to be funded to 92%. In the 2018 bill, the legislature only funds 83.2% of those “excess costs”. The court has requested that the funding be adjusted to meet the 92% requirement.
• The following initiatives the court mentioned included funding this year, but noted there is no funding included after that. It’s worth noting the funding formula is written to include those things year after year, but since those future budgets are not yet written, they are not specifically mentioned.
  1. Teacher Mentoring: $1.3 million
  2. Paying for student ACT/WorkKeys test assessments: $2.8 million
  3. Community mental health partnership pilot program: $10 million

Industry experts are working to provide us with anticipated costs, which we expect to receive in a few days. The court’s ruling was data-driven and represents a fair and balanced expectation to be met by the legislature. I believe the legislature will make quick work to address these issues early on in the 2019 session.

INTERNET SALES TAX – SOUTH DAKOTA V. WAYFAIR
The much-anticipated ruling of South Dakota v. Wayfair was released by the Supreme Court on June 21st. This case challenged the ruling of Quill v. North Dakota, in which states could not require internet retailers to charge sales tax if they had no physical presence in the state. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in South Dakota’s favor, leaving the decision to require internet retailers to charge sales tax up to the individual state, honoring state sovereignty.

This ruling is perceived as a victory for states and localities, who have been losing billions in tax revenue from antiquated laws. Not only will this decision transform how state’s will format and structure internet sales tax laws, but also will have tremendous effects on e-commerce.

The Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD) does not have any set-in-stone data regarding how many Kansans are purchasing products online from retailers not charging sales tax. That being said, I have a strong feeling that most Kansans have made an online purchase from a store without a physical presence in the state, leading to the connotation that this will have a significant impact on our state’s ability to restore key programs, re-invest in T-Works projects and other ways to improve our state and the lives of Kansans. The legislature must make calculated decisions, utilizing reliable data that will allow us to balance the tax code and provide for these other key programs.

SPORTS BETTING – MURPHY V. NCAA
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of sports gambling, striking down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, a federal law enacted in 1992. Not wanting to infringe on state sovereignty, the court ruled to allow the decision to allow sports betting up to the individual states.

In anticipation of a favorable ruling, more than 15 states have either passed or introduced sports betting laws. Rep. Jan Kessinger of Overland Park, a former member of the Kansas Gaming and Racing Commission, introduced HB 2792, Xwhich would have created the Kansas Sports Wagering Act, authorizing the Kansas Lottery to allow sports betting to take place in the state of Kansas, pending the outcome of Murphy, but it did not come out of committee. The bill will have to be reintroduced in the 2019 legislative session in order for the state to take advantage of this ruling.

Those in opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision believe the impact of the legalization of sports gambling will cause match-fixing and lead to corruption of games. Proponents of the ruling argue that countries with legalized sports betting, such as Britain, have yet to face these challenges. They go on further to suggest that the legalization of sports betting will lead to organizations being able to better monitor “betting irregularities that could suggest corruption.”

Director of the Sports Law Program at Tulane Law School, Gabriel Feldman, states that the legalization of sports gambling will transform how we watch sports games and matches, with fans following multiple teams rather than being a die-hard fan of just one athletic program: “It will make every second of every game of every week interesting to fans as it will give everyone something to root for.”

It is a special honor to serve as your state representative. I both value and need your input on the various issues facing state government. Please feel free to contact me with your comments and questions. My office address is Room 43-S, 300 SW 10th, Topeka, KS 66612. You can reach me at (785) 296-4683 or call the legislative hotline at 1-800-432-3924 to leave a message for me. Additionally, you can e-mail me at[email protected]. You can also follow the legislative session online at www.kslegislature.org.