Kansas

• Congressional and Legislative Process

  Primary Authority: Congressional and legislative plans are drawn and enacted by the Kansas State Legislature, subject to the Governor’s veto. The Legislature can override a veto with a 2/3 vote in each chamber. Republicans currently have veto-proof majorities in both chambers. [Kan. Const. art. X, § 1]

  If a bill is presented to the Governor during or after session, the Governor has 10 days to sign or veto it; otherwise, it becomes law without signature. Sundays are included from these calculations.

  Mapping Timeline: There is no specified deadline for congressional plans. The State Legislature must enact legislative plans by the end of its regular session in years ending in 2. Within 15 days of legislative plans’ passage, the Attorney General must petition the Kansas Supreme Court to determine their validity. The Court must render its judgment within 30 days of the petition being filed and, if it rejects a plan, the Legislature must enact a remedial plan conforming to the judgment within 15 days. [Kan. Const. art. X, § 1]

  Redistricting Criteria: None.

  Map Challenges: Not specified for congressional plan challenges. Legislative plans are automatically reviewed by the Kansas Supreme Court. [Kan. Const. art. X, § 1]

• Ballot Measure & Referendum Process

  Types of Measures: Only the Kansas State Legislature can refer amendments to the ballot. There is no initiative or referendum process. [Kan. Const. art. XIV]

• Previous Redistricting Cycles

  2020

  • Congressional
    • Original Plan – SB 355
      • Passed = January 26, 2022 (R-controlled)
      • Vetoed = February 3, 2022 (D-controlled)
      • Veto Override = February 9, 2022
    • Litigation History
      • Petition to Determine Validity of State Legis. Districts, No. 125083 (Kan. Jun. 21, 2022): On April 25, 2022, Kansas's Attorney General filed a petition with the Kansas Supreme Court to determine the validity of the state's enacted state legislative redistricting plans pursuant to the mandatory review process under Article 10, Section 1(b) of the Kansas Constitution. On May 18, the Kansas Supreme Court issued an order holding the legislative plans constitutional and released its full opinion on June 21.
      • Rivera v. Schwab, No. 2022-CV-89 (D. Kan. Jun. 21, 2022): On February 14, 2022, a group of Kansas voters and a Kansas non-profit filed a lawsuit against Kansas's Secretary of State and the Election Commissioner of Wyandotte County challenging the state's enacted congressional plan as violating several different provisions of the Kansas Constitution. On April 25, the district court issued its ruling striking down the congressional plan as violating various provisions of the Kansas Constitution. On May 18, the Kansas Supreme Court issued an order reversing the district court's judgment and upholding the congressional plan as constitutional and released its full opinion on June 21.
      • Alonzo v. Schwab, No. 2022-CV-000090 (D. Kan. Jun. 21, 2022): On February 14, 2022 a group of Kansas voters filed a lawsuit against Kansas's Secretary of State and the Wyandotte County Election Commissioner challenging the state's enacted congressional plan as violating the Kansas Constitution. On April 25, the district court issued its ruling striking down the congressional plan as violating various provisions of the Kansas Constitution. On May 18, the Kansas Supreme Court issued an order reversing the district court's judgment and upholding the congressional plan as constitutional and released its full opinion on June 21.
      • Schwab v. Klapper, No. 124849 (Kan. Mar. 4, 2022): On February 18, 2022, Kansas's Secretary of State and Wyandotte County's Election Commissioner filed a petition with the Kansas Supreme Court seeking the dismissal of two redistricting lawsuits then-pending in Kansas district courts, Rivera v. Schwab and Alonzo v. Schwab, which challenged the state's enacted congressional plan as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Kansas Constitution. On March 4, 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court issued its opinion denying the petitioners' requests on the grounds their claims did not qualify for mandamus or quo warranto relief.
  • Legislative
    • Original Plans – SB 563
      • Passed = March 30, 2022 (R-controlled)
      • Signed = April 15, 2022
    • Litigation History
      • None

  2010

  • Congressional
    • Federal Court’s Plan (R-controlled Legislature failed to pass)
      • Adopted = June 7, 2012 (in Essex v. Kobach, appendix B)
    • Litigation History
      • Essex v. Kobach, 874 F.Supp.2d 1069 (D. Kan. 2012): After the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature failed to agree on congressional and legislative plans, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas was petitioned to assume redistricting authority. On June 7, 2012, the district court adopted the congressional plan described in Appendix B to the court’s opinion.
  • Legislative
    • Federal Court’s Plan (R-controlled Legislature failed to pass)
      • Adopted = June 7, 2012 (in Essex v. Kobach, appendices C and D)
    • Litigation History
      • Essex v. Kobach, 874 F.Supp.2d 1069 (D. Kan. 2012): After the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature failed to agree on congressional and legislative plans, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas was petitioned to assume redistricting authority. On June 7, 2012, the district court adopted its legislative plans described in Appendices B and C to the court’s opinion.

  2000

  • Congressional
    • Original Plan – SB 152
      • Passed = May 31, 2002 (R-controlled)
    • Litigation History
      • Graham v. Thornburgh, 207 F.Supp.2d 1280 (D. Kan. 2002): Kansas’s Attorney General and residents of Kansas challenged the Kansas Legislature’s enacted congressional plan as unconstitutional, alleging it violated the one person, one vote constitutional requirement. On July 3, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ruled in favor of the defendants and upheld the plan after finding it satisfied the one person, one vote requirement.
  • Legislative
    • Original Plans – HB 2625 (House); SB 256 (Senate)
      • Passed = March 7, 2002 (House); April 4, 2002 (Senate) (R-controlled)
      • Signed = March 11, 2002 (House); April 8, 2002 (Senate)
    • Litigation History
      • In re 2002 Substitute for Senate Bill 256, No. 88,821 (Kan. May 9, 2002): The Kansas Attorney General invoked the Kansas Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to determine the validity of the Legislature’s enacted senatorial redistricting plan. On May 9, 2002, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the plan, finding it satisfied the one person, one vote constitutional requirement.
      • In re 2002 Substitute for House Bill 2625, No. 88,735 (Kan. Apr. 26, 2002): The Kansas Attorney General invoked the Kansas Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to determine the validity of the Legislature’s enacted house redistricting plan. On April 26, 2002, the court upheld the plan, finding it satisfied the one person, one vote constitutional requirement.

Current districts for Kansas by chamber, shaded by the incumbent’s party.