Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony on amendment to let legislature revise or revoke administrative rules

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, proponents urged support for House Concurrent Resolution 5,008, a proposed constitutional amendment that would add a new section to Article II of the Kansas Constitution allowing the Legislature to revise or revoke administrative rules and regulations by concurrent resolution and, if adopted, send that amendment to the voters at a special election on Aug. 4, 2026.

Proponents said the measure would restore a clearer separation of powers and give elected legislators a direct check on executive-branch rulemaking. Eric Stafford, vice president for government affairs at the Kansas Chamber, said the resolution would ensure agencies do not “go above and beyond legislative intent” and cited examples he said were inappropriate regulatory changes, including proposed changes to workers’ compensation wage formulas and a Department of Transportation rule on two-person train crews. "If you want that done, go through the legislature," Stafford said.

The measure joins recent statutory reforms, supporters said. Stafford pointed to a 2018 requirement for economic-impact statements and last year’s REINS Act, which requires legislative approval for rules with projected costs of more than $1 million over their first five years. Jim Manley, state policy chief at the Pacific Legal Foundation, said HCR 5,008 would build on those steps by allowing the Legislature to reconsider regulations already in effect and to enhance separation-of-powers oversight.

Not all testimony focused on institutional concerns. Amy Sippel, a nurse practitioner who said she has practiced in Kansas for more than three decades, described having her license listed as "unprofessional" by the Kansas State Board of Nursing after her license lapsed during a family medical crisis. Sippel said that designation has significant personal and professional consequences and testified in support of the resolution while acknowledging she was uncertain whether the constitutional change would directly remedy her individual case. "If you change that designation from unprofessional conduct… I would love to see a diversion process so that it’s not in perpetuity," Sippel said.

Representatives of regulated industries also spoke in support. A speaker for the Kansas Grain and Feed Association, Renew Kansas Biofuels Association and Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association said highly regulated industries rely on legal clarity and urged that voters be allowed to decide whether the Legislature should have clearer authority to revise or revoke rules that have the force and effect of law.

Reviser staff explained differences between this proposal and a 2022 constitutional proposal on a similar subject. Miss Scott, reviser of statutes, read the text of the earlier House Concurrent Resolution 5014 and noted that the earlier draft explicitly limited the action to revocation and tied the process to a majority vote, whereas the current HCR 5,008 is shorter, allows revision as well as revocation and is silent on the legislative voting threshold. She said that silence would likely be interpreted to mean the usual concurrent-resolution process, which does not require a two-thirds vote for adoption in the Legislature.

Committee members pressed proponents on several technical and practical points, including whether the measure could be used to overturn rules that are within an agency’s delegated authority and how courts might resolve disputes over scope. Senator Titus and others noted the likelihood of litigation where the Legislature and an agency disagreed about whether a rule exceeded statutory authority. Several senators encouraged drafting clearer statutory grant language in the future so that agencies’ rulemaking authority is more prescriptive.

Proponents and committee members also discussed process questions, including why the proposal uses a concurrent resolution (which would not require gubernatorial approval) rather than a bill. Proponents said the intent is to provide the Legislature with a direct mechanism to act without depending on the governor to veto or approve such a change.

The committee did not take a final vote on HCR 5,008 at the hearing and recorded no opponent or neutral in-person testimony; written proponent testimony from multiple groups was noted on the committee desk. The hearing was closed to further testimony.

Because HCR 5,008 would amend the state constitution if approved by voters, proponents and members emphasized that legal and procedural questions remain about how the authority would operate in practice, how voting thresholds would be applied, and whether reforms at the statutory level could address some of the concerns raised without a constitutional change.