Kansas

Overview

Kansas Redistricting Process

Congressional and Legislative

Congressional and legislative maps are enacted by the State Legislature. The Governor can veto the plans.

The Legislature can override a veto with a two-thirds vote. Republicans currently have veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

The State Supreme Court evaluates the legislative plan and verifies that it conforms to state and federal requirements. If it does not, the Legislature tries a second time to draw legal lines. If it is found to be illegal in the eyes of the court, the legislature will draw lines "in compliance with the direction of and conforming to the mandate of the Supreme Court." This process only applies to legislative maps.

Source: Kan. Const. art. X.


Previous Redistricting Cycles

  • 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 PlanSB 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 PlansHB 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.

Ballot Measure Process

Kinds of Ballot Measures
Only the Kansas Legislature may refer amendments to the ballot. There is no initiative or referendum process.

Source: Kan. Const. art. XIV.


In The News


Privacy Policy    |     Terms of Service
Copyright ©2021