Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas committee hears proposal to remove two-thirds state vote for Article V actions
Summary
The Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs held a hearing on SCR 16-17, which would amend Section 13 of Article 2 of the Kansas Constitution to eliminate a two-thirds state-vote requirement for resolutions to ratify U.S. constitutional amendments or apply to Congress to call a convention of the states, aligning the state rule with Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
TOPEKA — The Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs heard proponent testimony Friday on Senate Concurrent Resolution 16-17, a proposal to amend Section 13 of Article 2 of the Kansas Constitution so that actions to ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution or to request a convention under Article V would require only a simple majority in the Legislature.
Jason (committee staff) told the committee the change responds to an apparent conflict between Article V of the U.S. Constitution — which assigns legislatures authority to act on federal amendments and does not impose a supermajority requirement — and the Kansas Constitution’s current language, which requires two-thirds of each chamber. "Because of that apparent conflict, there was a district court decision saying the state constitutional provision was in fact in violation of Article V," Jason said.
Senator Mike Murphy, who joined as an in-person proponent, said the two-thirds requirement was added in 1974 and "was never discussed publicly" in committee or on the floor when inserted, and that the resolution would "align our constitution with the federal constitution." Murphy said he supported moving the question to the November ballot if the Legislature adopts the amendment.
Michael Farris, who identified himself as lead counsel in the related litigation (appearing by WebEx), said six U.S. Supreme Court decisions support the federal court’s conclusion and proposed a narrower edit that would strike the entire sentence addressing how Kansas treats amendments to the U.S. Constitution. "The Kansas Constitution should just be silent on the subject of how you amend the U.S. Constitution," Farris said, arguing that silence would leave the matter governed by legislative rules rather than a state constitutional provision.
Committee members asked procedural questions about ballot ordering and whether the proposal would affect other two-thirds rules; Jason replied the change would not alter the separate two-thirds requirement that governs amending the state constitution itself and said ballot-question ordering is generally handled by county clerks and the statutory process.
Senators expressed differing views on tactics. Senator Tyson said he was "extremely disappointed" the matter went to court rather than beginning with the legislative amendment route; Farris and Murphy described litigation as a valid tactic to obtain a binding precedent after prior attorney general guidance had not been followed.
The committee closed the hearing after two proponent testimonies and recorded no neutral or opponent witnesses.
The next steps would be committee deliberation and, if the resolution advances, a potential placement of the question on the November ballot.
