Kansas House investigative committee splits after hearing on complaint against Rep. Ford Carr

A Kansas House select investigative committee met March 27, 2025, in Topeka to continue a formal complaint charging Representative Ford Carr with a pattern of violent rhetoric, use of racial slurs and physical misconduct at a legislative reception. Chairman Lewis opened the hearing by ruling on evidentiary objections, directing the committee through a package of documentary and video evidence and then hearing oral testimony from the two parties, the complainant, Representative Howell, and Representative Carr.

The committee’s chair, identified in the record as Chairman Lewis, addressed admissibility before witnesses spoke and said the committee had admitted documents submitted by Carr and that it had excluded portions of some news articles as hearsay while preserving an exception for prior statements attributed to a party that is present to testify. "They are therefore admissible," Lewis said during the evidentiary rulings, referring to quoted or paraphrased statements by Representative Carr in news reports. The chair also explained exclusions grounded in relevancy and redundancy under applicable evidentiary rules the committee was applying on the record.

Representative Howell, the member who filed the complaint, testified that the complaint was not politically motivated and laid out what she called three core instances demonstrating a pattern: Carr’s April 28, 2023, comment from the House well using the term "house *****" (reported publicly), a Jan. 22, 2025 altercation at a legislative reception at the Celtic Fox in Wichita in which Howell said Carr used racial epithets and physically shoved other officials, and subsequent public remarks and writings by Carr. Howell told the committee the Celtic Fox incident involved property damage and at least two elected officials being physically shoved; she said she had submitted video, written statements and other exhibits to support her claims and asked the committee to act under House Rule 4,901.

Representative Carr disputed parts of Howell’s account and defended his conduct as politically and culturally contextualized. Carr said some published material attributed to him had been titled or edited by third parties and denied using certain explicit words attributed to him in some press accounts. He told the committee his behavior reflected "fighting for my people" and his district and, at times, tactics intended to draw attention to longstanding public‑health issues such as the contamination at 20th and Grove. Carr acknowledged physical interaction in the Celtic Fox videos but disputed aspects of how the videos and other evidence had been characterized.

Witness and documentary evidence reviewed in the hearing included video excerpts from the House floor and the Celtic Fox altercation, dozens of exhibit packets (numbered in the transcript from at least Exhibit 16 through Exhibit 33), several written statements by Representatives Henry Helgerson, Angela Martinez, Lynn Melton, Nikki McDonald and staff member Logan Demond, newspaper and radio articles, and social‑media posts. The committee paused for a recess after reviewing the documentary and video exhibits and then took oral testimony under oath; each party had a set time for testimony and follow‑up questions from committee members. The complainant testified for roughly the allotted 15 minutes; Carr also spoke and answered committee questions.

Committee members asked witnesses about the context and sequence of events at the Celtic Fox reception, whether Carr used racial epithets on the floor of the House, and whether he threatened or physically assaulted colleagues. Representative Howell told the committee she interpreted several of Carr’s published statements and videos — including a 2025 YouTube clip and written pieces — as demonstrating escalation rather than remorse. Howell also cited Kansas criminal law provisions relevant to battery in describing the altercation; she said she had spoken to law‑enforcement officers who viewed the video but said victims chose not to pursue criminal charges.

After testimony and questioning, the committee moved into deliberation. Members debated whether conduct from 2023 previously addressed by House leadership should be considered in this proceeding; some members said that prior admonishment and subsequent re‑election reduced the weight of older incidents, while others said prior events formed part of a continuing pattern. The committee considered three formal proposals:

• A motion to dismiss the complaint was made and seconded; the chair called a vote and the motion failed (no roll‑call tally recorded in the hearing transcript).

• A motion to recommend a reprimand for Representative Carr under the committee’s authority was moved and seconded. After discussion and a recorded voice vote the motion failed.

• A subsequent motion asked the committee to prepare a report to the full House noting the committee’s difficulty reaching a single recommendation and reminding members of the importance of decorum. That motion passed on a roll call reported in the transcript as 5 in favor and 1 opposed. The committee then voted to appoint two members — the chair and Representative Osman — to draft that report for review by the full committee; that procedural motion passed by recorded voice as 6‑0.

The committee did not adopt a recommendation for censure, reprimand, dismissal or expulsion. Members who opposed formal discipline cited the limits of the committee’s authority and precedent that expulsion is reserved for criminal or extreme conduct, while members who favored discipline cited what they described as a pattern of aggressive rhetoric and conduct and said institutional standards of decorum are at stake.

Next steps: the chair and the named minority‑party member will draft a committee report to be circulated to committee members and returned for committee approval before being submitted to the full House. The committee adjourned at the end of its deliberations.

Reporting notes: the committee transcript and admitted exhibits (videos, written statements and news reporting) constitute the evidentiary record before the committee. The committee’s procedural rulings about hearsay and relevancy — and the decision to exclude parts of news coverage while admitting party statements quoted in those reports — were made on the record by Chairman Lewis and form part of the official record.