[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6339332,"mediaKeyId","2262156-b5e71afc7697b6f3467cb12f033965a3","parentId",2262156,"title","Judiciary Committee advances two bills, defers one: HB 2212 and HB 2183 pass; HB 2173 deferred","audioSeconds",3007,"startMs",6082425,"endMs",9090364,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2262156-b5e71afc7697b6f3467cb12f033965a3&start=6082&end=9090","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2262156-b5e71afc7697b6f3467cb12f033965a3/thumbnail_6082425.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6339332/Kansas/Judiciary-Committee-advances-two-bills-defers-one-HB-2212-and-HB-2183-pass-HB-2173-deferred","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339332-3a06719e056d9da06f2a0f52504455d7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775522726&Signature=NplFyDRDofHtr7SUcTCVpdtIDs7ydZ636X8N5xQuB-kgmOdG7Se67xUa0Ovl1ntZQXhDVT92UBQ8g5EOoXm0QxOoXN9kj6sIS5x3aIgnPDvekHv-US4k7fbqLqc6J9CnKbOuDjDazYkciCUFZ8DQyrBrwpjK8DcHMHjM30itciCWxU4fliLtvi2rZe31QvCtmTSDaiIIXUNjTS88D4ub~sW-xuciP9RS4Db-SYl10NuqtzpB4F4FDZ-ICnwzWgiBzixpxfayb0ZCDU6yIlfSUcFAyVUqWxRosukiqIt~ef0p6H1EcohkUhfc1G3dL1mQfZVbn06wDQuEqbUT2Frnyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","KS Legislature","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","At the end of the hearing day, the Committee on Judiciary met to work several bills. Members debated and voted on two bills and deferred further action on a third pending drafting clarifications.

HB 22‑12 (Secretary of Corrections discretionary payments): Representative Williams moved HB 22‑12 favorably for passage and Representative Lewis seconded. The bill author and the reviser explained the measure authorizes the Secretary of Corrections to pay claims up to $750 that otherwise would go to the special claims committee. The committee adopted the motion and the bill passed out of committee favorably for passage; Representative Williams asked that his affirmative vote be recorded in the minutes.

HB 21‑73 (Offender Registration Act): Representative Barth presented an amendment intended to forbid petitioning for relief from registration for offenders convicted of certain violent child‑victim crimes. Committee members discussed the scope and drafting of the amendment, whether the statutory references capture aggravated and non‑aggravated offenses and the potential retroactivity effects created by 2011 changes to the registration statute. The reviser advised additional tailoring would be required to avoid unintentionally sweeping in other offenses. Members agreed to postpone work on HB 21‑73 to a subsequent committee meeting (Thursday) to allow staff to prepare precise draft language; the committee did not vote on the amendment.

HB 21‑83 (artificially generated child sexual depictions): The committee considered and adopted two amendments and then voted the amended bill favorably out of committee. Representative Barrett offered an amendment that narrowed the bill to criminalize possession of (a) a visual depiction of a child under 18 that is sexual in nature, or (b) an artificially generated visual depiction that is obscene and indistinguishable from a real child. Representative Barrett described the change as raising the constitutional standard (requiring obscenity) for images not traceable to an identifiable child. The committee adopted Barrett's amendment. Representative Ward offered a technical amendment adding “cable services” to the list of entities that are excluded from liability under the bill (consistent with federal immunities for communications carriers); the committee adopted that amendment. Representative Williams then moved the amended HB 21‑83 favorably for passage; Representative Ward seconded and the bill passed out of committee as amended.

Votes at a glance:
- HB 22‑12: Mover — Representative Williams; Seconder — Representative Lewis; Outcome — passed favorably out of committee (ayes announced; no recorded roll call tally in transcript).
- HB 21‑73: Amendment by Representative Barth discussed and drafting changes requested; action deferred to Thursday for redrafting (no final vote).
- HB 21‑83: Mover — Representative Williams; Seconder — Representative Ward; Key amendments adopted — Barrett amendment (adds obscenity/indistinguishable standard for AI depictions), Ward amendment (adds cable services to statutory exclusion); Outcome — passed favorably out of committee as amended (ayes announced; no recorded roll call tally in transcript).

Ending: Committee members announced they would not meet the following day; they scheduled follow‑up work on HB 21‑73 for the next meeting and recorded that several additional bills might be considered at the next session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee on Judiciary 02/11/2025","oneSentenceSummary","In a working session the committee passed House Bill 22‑12 (administrative claims authority for the secretary of corrections) and House Bill 21‑83 (criminalizing certain artificially generated child sexual depictions) as amended; the committee deferred further action on House Bill 21‑73 (offender registration) to allow redrafting of an amendment.","taxTitle","Committee on Judiciary, Standing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",18817,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6339336,"Heated hearing on HB 2348: proponents urge removal of tenure as a property right; universities, faculty and students oppose",1859,1705080,3564700,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2262156-b5e71afc7697b6f3467cb12f033965a3&start=1705&end=3564","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2262156-b5e71afc7697b6f3467cb12f033965a3/thumbnail_1705080.jpg","/articles/6339336/Kansas/Heated-hearing-on-HB-2348-proponents-urge-removal-of-tenure-as-a-property-right-universities-faculty-and-students-oppose","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339336-830c12b63c00279e6db2c4c9001c0915/orig.mp4?Expires=1775522726&Signature=U8tEBkNCG7ZwN22XxliL0asaMLg7XZ6m73AMKTFvjEfK~yHO842bunqtOdDIZGlxDpSOCpeUJnpDIdirTkrncBTqaVSeWvMfdusJkLzVMLQWYkyJWG2vsfr7C9tAbwwR9iUl0kw-dcTKDrQsx1m2S4S-KO1kZpXpwomVGaTtFYck3HFfsM7DthCC7cPY0HGQtk2WVSN-dA-zETe9of-PZbt2ulKV~hts1tzS0IKHE6SK0seFss6Pk7uTJ168c4BDHIFz8SCsTVTNwMNWGr3JsCb~xCpdOzIzOfV2RSCRHYZ04RiSUjQAvL3rbot9in51lfi7QOmLuh-Vh-OtobyMXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Committee on Judiciary opened a public hearing on House Bill 23‑48, which would provide that an award of tenure at a Kansas public postsecondary institution may confer benefits but is discretionary and conditional and “does not create an entitlement right or property interest in a faculty member's current, ongoing, or future employment.” The bill drew substantial pro and con testimony.

Steven Lovett, who identified himself as the author of HB 23‑48 and as an associate professor at Emporia State University, testified as a proponent in his personal capacity and said the legislature can define property rights under state law. He told the committee the federal district court for Kansas recently found that tenured university faculty possess property rights invoking the U.S. Constitution's due process clause in a case in which Lovett said he is a named defendant. Lovett argued that declaring tenure a property right creates a long‑term, unfunded fiscal liability for the state and that academic freedom is protected by the First Amendment rather than tenure or administrative due process. He quantified potential liability: “In fiscal year 2023, there were approximately 2,834 tenured faculty members or tenure track faculty members employed by the six four‑year educational institutions governed by KBOR. Assuming on average that each of those faculty members has a gross compensation of $91,000 per year, the annual payroll liability for this unique employment status is $206,000,000 every year,” Lovett said, adding a ten‑year extrapolation of roughly $2.6 billion.

Lovett also said he had renounced his own tenure and that the bill would not abolish tenure but would remove a property‑right characterization. He argued the Kansas Board of Regents policy already treats tenure as a privilege granted for meritorious performance and that the legislature may clarify the legal status of tenure.

Opponents outnumbered proponents at the hearing and included university leaders, faculty groups, student representatives and education associations. Doug Gerard, chancellor of the University of Kansas, said tenure is foundational to research universities and to their ability to recruit and retain top scholars; he said KU's research enterprise creates significant statewide economic impact and relies on tenured and tenure‑track faculty.

Richard Linton, president of Kansas State University, testified that K‑State's research and extension missions rely on tenured faculty and presented figures for research expenditures and economic activity associated with tenured faculty. Blake Flanders, president and CEO of the Kansas Board of Regents, testified in opposition and urged the Legislature to work with the board on systemic solutions; he described recruiting and retention headwinds and said the board needed time to review the proposed statutory change.

Faculty and academic groups including the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and newly formed unions said the bill appeared designed to undercut an ongoing court case and would threaten accreditation, national reputation, recruitment and program stability. Ron Berkenzellis (AAUP co‑chair) said the bill “is specifically structured to address property rights … and rights of faculty members, which courts have consistently ruled are covered by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” The Washburn AAUP chapter, United Academics of KU, the Kansas National Education Association and student government leaders testified in opposition, citing threats to academic freedom and the quality of higher education in Kansas.

Committee members asked whether there already exists controlling precedent. Jason Thompson, the reviser, said there is Tenth Circuit precedent (Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, 1998) and a more recent federal district court order that has found tenure to be a property right, but he noted legal disagreement exists and subsection conflicts in the bill (the bill attempts retroactivity in subsection c while subsection e preserves constitutional protections) create legal tension.

Several members urged caution because the bill seeks to affect rights that are the subject of active litigation, and opponents said the author has a conflict of interest because Lovett is a named defendant in the pending litigation. No committee vote was taken; members asked for written materials and legal analysis before any further action.

Ending: The hearing closed after more than a dozen organizations and individuals testified in opposition; the committee signaled it would review written submissions and legal research before considering any motion on HB 23‑48.","House Bill 2348, which would state that tenure at public postsecondary institutions is not a property right, drew heavy testimony. The bill's author and a small‑group of proponents argued tenure creates a long‑term fiscal liability; university leaders, faculty groups and students warned of harms to recruitment, accreditation and research.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6339340,"Judiciary Committee reviews omnibus LLC revisions in HB 2371 amid debate over series LLCs and Delaware model",1637,66240,1704220,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2262156-b5e71afc7697b6f3467cb12f033965a3&start=66&end=1704","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2262156-b5e71afc7697b6f3467cb12f033965a3/thumbnail_66240.jpg","/articles/6339340/Kansas/Judiciary-Committee-reviews-omnibus-LLC-revisions-in-HB-2371-amid-debate-over-series-LLCs-and-Delaware-model","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339340-a9c831dc73ec4786ee1d8f6cdd2eb81c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775522726&Signature=my8G19s0pDlRiPJlCeZSKqv8faZweZgxxTxrPtX66diN7rK-rPtBdUbtoyFSMnVulwOu6sq9qHJTbl1OehwbJPVUnzbsBBDDeIiX8tm~-Tz700WEnDrweGK7V~3IV1rGRWxsSRhJb0V3Tm27Ekj6sp1qgI4lDO6HFMGFQbqvYcBYMFDOfr09W6SXRrIzkeXC9xJDGuYQh933Efl-1C1Fi2iVZRRzeChPlYj9EAerXVl~K-li5uBDxCPGadZdwKptuBhk-I6q7G1I316zlHd73-95nO8jYuZCjabk8rxtLYM4UwNu3Ae28KoizBadwXVtk6q4YFfEhX8jNt2-nH0CyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Committee on Judiciary opened a hearing on House Bill 2,371, an omnibus bill that would amend the Kansas Revised Limited Liability Company Act and related statutes, receiving a bill brief from the reviser's office and proponent, neutral and technical testimony.

Jason Thompson, reviser, Statute's Office, summarized the scope: “House Bill 2,371 amends parts of 3 acts in current law,” identifying changes to the Kansas Revised Limited Liability Company Act, the Business Entity Transactions Act and the Business Entity Standard Treatment Act. He pointed members to the bill brief for section-by-section detail and highlighted that section 16 addresses the series LLC provision (KSA 17‑76‑143) and sections 20–23 address statutory public benefit LLCs.

Proponents from the Kansas Bar Association study committee said the bill is an omnibus modernization. “We represent a study committee of the Kansas Bar Association that has reviewed the Kansas Revised Limited Liability Company Act,” testified William (Bill) Quicke of the Polsinelli law firm, who said the committee drew on practitioners, academics, banking representatives and the secretary of state's office to align Kansas law with contemporary practice. Quicke said much of the drafting follows recent Delaware amendments and that the committee alternates periodic reviews of corporate and LLC statutes.

Representative questions focused on whether Kansas would follow Delaware or adopt different language. Quicke said Kansas has long modeled business‑entity law on Delaware, but the study committee reviews Delaware changes and recommends whether Kansas should follow. When Representative Carmichael raised a potential conflict because Polsinelli represents Lockton, Quicke acknowledged, “Polsonelli does represent Lockton.” Committee members asked how any Lockton‑sponsored changes (a separate bill, HB 2355, discussed informally) would be handled.

Clay Barker of the Kansas Secretary of State's office said the office supports the bill generally as a member of the working group but sought one technical change tied to filing fees in section 16. Barker explained that the fee for forming an LLC in Kansas is statutorily fixed at $150 and asked that the bill give the secretary regulatory authority to treat $150 as a ceiling and reduce the fee by regulation if appropriate, noting about 29,000 LLCs form in Kansas each year and that any fee reduction would be coordinated with budget staff because receipts go to the state general fund.

Industry neutral testimony described differing views about series LLC language. Eric Stafford of the Kansas Chamber testified as neutral and said the Chamber appreciates the Bar Association's work to modernize statutes but that the Chamber's proposed series LLC language—drawn in part from Missouri and Illinois precedent—aims to provide clarity for businesses and make Kansas a more attractive place for investment. “We are here today as a neutral party,” Stafford said, adding that in his view some deviations from Delaware are technical clarifications rather than substantive shifts.

Kelly Van Swal of the Kansas Bankers Association said banks share some concerns about series LLC provisions tied to taxation and creditor remedies. “Tax is an issue for us because when a garnishment or a tax levy comes into the bank, it's done by their tax ID number,” Van Swal testified, and the association sought clearer language on how series LLCs present tax IDs and on fraudulent transfers, referencing KSA 33‑102 (transfer to delay or defraud creditors) as a potential cross‑reference.

Committee members asked whether the draft language deviated substantively from Delaware, whether that was advisable and whether any changes would create uncertainty for practitioners. Proponents said the committee sought to incorporate Delaware updates where appropriate but that some series LLC provisions reflect other state models; opponents and neutral parties urged careful review of series provisions and cross‑references to tax and fraudulent‑transfer law.

The committee did not take final action on HB 2371 at the hearing. Members said they wanted time to review written materials, the reviser's brief and the technical amendments proposed by stakeholders before moving the bill forward.

The hearing closed after committee members and conferees completed questions and staff offered to circulate additional materials.

Ending: Committee members signaled continued review, with technical issues—series LLC treatment, public‑benefit LLC changes and fee‑authority language—flagged for follow‑up before any formal committee vote.","The Committee on Judiciary held a hearing on House Bill 2371, an omnibus package updating Kansas limited liability company law. Supporters said the bill modernizes the Kansas Revised Limited Liability Company Act; industry groups and some lawmakers pressed for narrower changes on series LLC provisions and tax and banking consequences.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judiciary Committee advances two bills, defers one: HB 2212 and HB 2183 pass; HB 2173 deferred

Heated hearing on HB 2348: proponents urge removal of tenure as a property right; universities, faculty and students oppose

Judiciary Committee reviews omnibus LLC revisions in HB 2371 amid debate over series LLCs and Delaware model