TOPEKA – To protect the Kansas Constitution as Kansas citizens have always known it, Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, along with several co-sponsors, introduced a constitutional amendment that simply reinforces existing Article 2 language clearly prohibiting Kansas courts from ordering the Legislature to appropriate taxpayer dollars, thereby silencing the people’s voice. The amendment is identical to legislation that passed the Kansas Senate with more than a two-thirds majority in the summer of 2005.

“Judicial edicts directing the Legislature to spend money represents a violation of the separation of powers that must exist between the legislative and judicial branches of government,” Kinzer said. “In our system the Legislature alone may spend the people’s money, because it is the Legislature that is accountable to them. The confinement of appropriations to the legislative branch is not random. It reflects our national ideal that the power of the purse must be under the control of the representative branches of government. This basic idea was at the very core of why our country came into being in the first place.”

Supporters of this proposed constitutional amendment contend that the question of the court’s power to order spending measures is a separate and distinct issue from the question of whether or not more money should be spent on K-12 education.

“This amendment is not because the court’s decision was about school finance,” one of the co-sponsors, Rep. Kasha Kelley, R-Arkansas City, said. “Members with very different opinions regarding that issue can and do agree that this amendment is reasonable and necessary. The fundamental system of checks and balances that serves as the foundation of our constitutional system of government cannot be abandoned in the name of political pressure.”

Another legislative co-sponsor, Rep. Mary Pilcher Cook, R-Shawnee, said she was concerned about the economic effects of the court's decision.

“When the judicial branch is allowed to mandate a specific appropriation without considering the rest of the state budget or the state economy, the court could literally cripple and bankrupt the state,” Cook said. “Judges should not defraud citizens of their vote and take money from them without their permission.”

If passed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate and the House, the amendment would be put to a vote of the people.

“It is important to remember that in our system of government it is the people, not the Legislature or the courts, who are ultimately sovereign,” Kinzer said. “The actions of the Supreme Court have created a significant constitutional dispute. Under such circumstances I believe it is wholly proper for us to submit that dispute to the people for resolution via the amendment process.”