Judiciary Committee advances constitutional amendment to let Legislature revoke administrative rules

The Committee on Judiciary on an unspecified date advanced House Concurrent Resolution 5,008, as amended, which would place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow the Legislature to revise or revoke administrative rules and regulations by concurrent resolution.

The resolution, explained by Jason Thompson of the Revisor’s Office, would send a proposed amendment to the ballot that “would concern administrative rules and regulations and provide for legislative oversight,” and — if adopted by the constitutionally required two-thirds majorities in both chambers and then approved by voters — would appear on the August 2026 primary ballot, Thompson said.

Proponents argued the measure restores authority to elected representatives. Representative Lewis, who offered the amendment that the committee approved, said the change was meant to simplify and clarify: “the people's duly elected or appointed representatives and senators may revise or revoke administrative rules and regulations or any portion thereof by adoption of a concurrent resolution,” she said, summarizing the amendment's operative language. Supporters said giving the Legislature a clear path for oversight would curb what they called sprawling rulemaking by unelected agency staff.

Opponents said the statutory and constitutional mechanisms already provide checks. Representative Carmichael and other members cited recent Department of Labor rules that were ultimately disapproved or abandoned after review; Carmichael said the system “worked exactly as it was designed” and argued the attorney general and existing statutory avenues can stop improper regulations. Carmichael also warned the explanatory statement that would appear to voters “is in many ways inconsistent with the actual substantive language” of the amendment and said that mismatch could mislead voters.

Representative Vaughn pressed that the Lewis amendment removes objective criteria for when the Legislature could revoke rules, leaving the action to “the will of the legislature,” and said that lack of standards could politicize rulemaking and undermine a duly elected governor’s administrative responsibilities. Vaughn also raised concern about placing the question on a primary ballot with lower turnout and suggested the general election would be a preferable venue.

Committee members also asked procedural questions about placement on the ballot and cost. Committee discussion noted that putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot requires two-thirds of both chambers to place it before voters, that a majority of voters would be needed to approve it, and that the measure would appear at the August 2026 primary (technically a special election held with the primary). A fiscal note addressing printing/counting costs was not available in the committee record.

After discussion the committee adopted the Lewis amendment (moved by Representative Lewis, seconded by Representative Barth) and later voted to pass HCR 5,008 favorably for passage as amended (motion moved by Representative Williams, seconded by Representative Lewis). The committee conducted a division vote; by the chair’s count the motion passed 9 to 7. Representative Carmichael asked that his no vote be recorded; Representative Martinez also requested her no vote be recorded. The committee did not post a full roll-call transcript of all members’ votes in the excerpted record.

The committee record includes references to attorney general review and to the Joint Committee on Rules and Regulations as existing oversight steps. Representative Carmichael cited a 1982 court decision (named in committee discussion) holding that revocation of regulations requires submitting legislation to the governor for signature or veto; he said the proposed amendment would bypass that requirement.

If the resolution continues to advance, it would still require two-thirds approval in both the Kansas House and Senate to be placed on the ballot and then a majority of voters to adopt the constitutional amendment. Committee debate flagged several follow-up items: the absence of guideline criteria in the amended text, the possibility of misleading explanatory language for voters, an unresolved fiscal note for ballot placement, and the choice of primary versus general election timing.