From the Alvin and Rosalie Sara Check studio PBS Kansas Presents Kansas Week.

A new poll shapes up the race to succeed Governor Laura Kelly, revealing early frontrunners and a massive bloc of undecided voters ahead of the August 4th primary.

Plus, a strict new federal loan cap and rising tuition costs threaten to drive nursing students away and deepen a rural health care crisis.

But first, a constitutional showdown.

Seven decades in the making Kansans prepare to decide if the public, not a special commission, should choose the state's supreme Court justices.

That's what we're talking about right now on Kansas Week.

Hello.

Welcome to Kansas week.

I'm Jared Cirillo.

With early voting weeks away now, the campaign is heating up over a constitutional amendment that could overhaul the Kansas Supreme Court.

Yard signs are out across the state as both sides ramp up advocacy ahead of the July 14th voter registration deadline on the August 4th primary ballot.

Voters are deciding whether to abolish the seven decade old nominating commission in favor of direct popular elections for the state's highest court.

Opponents are warning that introducing political campaigns would inject Partizan dark money into an impartial courtroom.

But supporters are arguing that the change strips the power from special interest insiders and restores democratic accountability to Kansans.

Here to discuss this, and some of the week's other state and local news is Democrat State Senator Alisa Faust Goudeau.

Conservative political consultant Ben Davis and Wichita Eagle opinion editor Diane Leffler.

Thank you all for joining us.

I hope everybody's dried out from last night's rain.

It was got 4 to 5in, but gosh.

What what are we what's going on here?

Alisa, do you have anything to or should.

Is this going to pass or yes or no on this?

It seems like this is a very divisive issue.

Well, first of all, I believe that the, merit process of the nomination of those Supreme Court judges who are appointed by individuals that know, what they should do and not do.

I think we should leave that in place, especially, if the municipal courts, if your, hearing doesn't go the way that you want it to go, we need somewhere to go and actually have impartial, individuals, look over the case.

And so I, I'm, I'm on the side of keeping it where it is.

So you're here supporting voting?

No.

At this point in time.

The point seems to be like, you know, we elect our district judges, our criminal district judges.

This right now by voters.

And this is what the counties do some county Sedgwick County does, and this is what they're trying to do with state higher, higher federal state judges.

Now, it seems like, well, I mean, we've all been in the voting booth.

We've all gotten the ballot and we've all seen all that, a long list of judges, and we've all gone, who are these guys?

Yeah.

You know, I mean, and I'm as bad about it as anybody.

I'm supposed to know these people.

And, you know, I recognize maybe about one out of three names.

And I know how I know how that goes for the average voter.

I mean, they probably don't recognize any of them.

So, you know, it really does make sense to keep the, the keep the system as it is because you are, you know, the the the commission vets these people, they interview these people.

The interviews are public.

The the system is transparent and they don't see a really good reason to change.

However, I do want to point out that the biggest reason to vote no on this is that it would allow Supreme Court justices in the state of Kansas to serve as party leaders, party officers.

And that is just beyond the kid that's just beyond the pale.

It you know, you'd have you have Supreme Court justices who could use their power to leverage political campaigns for other people.

And, you know, and if if you doubt me, I've got the, I got the proof here on my phone and I'll read it to you.

Do you think some Supreme Court judges or any Supreme Court justice would actually do that?

I mean, typically when we see the federal, you know, the U.S.

Supreme Court justices, they never do interviews.

They never take sides on any issue.

Do you think, really, state Supreme Court justices would do something like that?

Before I go to Ben?

I don't know if they do it blatantly, openly.

I don't know if they'd serve as party officers, but I do know that that they'd be raising money.

It's it's just too much of an attraction.

There's too much opportunity for corruption there.

And when you open that door, you know.

We'd never have a chance to close it because we don't have an initiative process in this state.

There's no way for the public to bring something to the ballot.

Only the legislature can do that, and the legislature would be the primary beneficiary.

All right, Ben Davis so both of these, both of these very astute people are saying that we can't trust voters to vote in our state Supreme Court justices.

Do you agree or disagree?

No, I disagree.

I'm a very firm yes on this.

This is I hope it passes and it's a change this long overdue.

Look, we elected our justices long before the, this, this, this compromise went into place.

I think it was 1958.

So we've had this system here.

It's already political, and it's allowing a private guild, i.e.

the Kansas Bar Association, basically to I know the governor gets to a point for other people there, but you have five people elected among the Kansas Bar Association who essentially, you know, pick and vet these people, and we're giving it over to a private guild to, to to select our judges.

And then the governor gets to pick out of a pool of three.

So a lot of the people who are saying no to this are the same people who say, we need to protect democracy.

So so which is it?

Do we protect democracy and allow the voters to have a say?

By the way, over 30 states elect judges of the Supreme Court judges.

So this is something that works well in in many other states.

I don't know how many other states have the convoluted system that we put in place here.

And to say that it's not already politicized is illusory.

That's that's just a that's, that's that's not owning up to reality.

So the people can be trusted.

And just because, municipal or district court judges or county judges don't actually run political campaigns, many of them go unopposed and don't really need to run any hands.

I think in at least, 2000, in 2024, I don't know if the Democrats put up one single nominee for a judge to run, and the Republicans all ran unopposed.

Why would you run a campaign if you don't have to?

So just because they're not running campaigns doesn't mean that that somehow is taking away from what this system should be.

These justices would have to run campaigns.

They would have to be held accountable to their voting record.

They would have to be, quite frankly, accountable to, to whether or not they are actually adhering to the Constitution or not.

Under the system that we have now, Supreme Court justices are basically just making up, amendments and rights and laws under the Constitution that are completely fictitious and not being held accountable for it, at all.

And so this is a system that is very much long overdue.

And I hope the voters voted in, I hope the voters have a say in every voter will have a say.

And and a Democrat judge could win just as much as a Republican judge.

Alito.

You're chomping at the bit.

Yeah, I can hear it.

I am on this side of the people.

Most people are getting up every day and going to work and just struggling to get by, and they don't have time to read up on all the merits of these judges.

And, I just I know for a fact, because I just got the stats in from the Secretary of State's office.

I serve on the elections committee that every precinct, doesn't get out and vote 100%.

And so every one would not have a voice on this.

And again, I'm sure the people that don't always get to read up on these issues.

And this is typically when you go when you go in and vote for these judges, this is when you see, should we retain these questions.

Should we retain.

So and so for this position?

Should we retain this judge for this position.

That would change now.

And these judges would have to basically run political campaigns.

Correct.

Well, yeah.

And if, I mean, if it, if a Supreme Court justice, you know, did something bad, you know, we do have the we do have the ability to take them out.

And in a retention election, it doesn't happen.

The other thing that doesn't happen is to have A54 split on the nominating commission, because four of the lawyers who are elected are elected by congressional districts.

So you get conservative, you get conservative lawyers from conservative areas, and you get more progressive lawyers from progressive areas.

But that never happens.

There's never been a five for any any last words been on his response.

So I'm just the way it is now.

This takes it completely, not only out of the people's hands, it takes it out of the legislature's hands.

There's absolutely no accountability.

And why in the world again, and what other segment of government do you hand over, especially something like judicial nominees for the highest court in the state to a private guild?

It just absolutely does not happen.

It is the most convoluted system, and it needs to change.

And I hope it I hope it changes on the fourth.

We'll move on higher education costs are taking center stage in Kansas as far as public universities are proposing tuition hikes up to 6% to offset state budget cuts.

But for one group of students, the price of a degree is facing an even bigger threat.

The U.S.

Department of Justice and Attorney General Kris Kobach have sued to scrap a two decade old law that allows undocumented students to pay in-state rates.

Governor Laura Kelly is interviewing to defend or intervening, I should say, to defend the law.

She's calling these young Kansans a net benefit to the state's workforce.

With campus fees rising and a federal court battle looming, the cost of a college classroom has never been more controversial.

Ben Davis, I'll let you chime in here first.

This is this is a touchy subject.

When why should immigrant students be treated any different than out-of-state students?

Well, here's the thing.

And I haven't heard this really any of the reporting.

So as it stands right now, Kansas is is breaking federal law under the 1996 illegal immigrant reform and immigrant responsibility Act.

It is illegal to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens unless you provide in-state tuition to everybody.

So somebody from Missouri or Arkansas or Oklahoma could come over here and do this.

So a very simple fix would be and especially because, I mean, I think what enrollment is falling flat and we've got major financial issues.

I think that's one of the other stories here.

Open up in-state tuition to everybody in America to come to Kansas, and then you're no you're in compliance with federal law.

And this is no longer an issue.

But until that happens, if the legislature is certainly not willing to do that, this should not be an emotional thing.

We should not be, you know, the other side, when you don't have facts on your side, then you just start having all these big emotional appeals.

You're completely in direct violation of federal law.

So it's right for, for AG Kovach to not be defending a law that's explicitly illegal.

He should be standing aside, joining the Justice Department until the legislature is willing to do the hard work to open it up for in-state tuition for everybody, or to repeal the law and have it be as it as it should be.

Diane, I think you're going to take an opposing position here, but go ahead.

Well, you know, it's been going on for a long time.

And I am not going to pretend to be I'm not going to pretend to be.

I'm not going to play a lawyer on TV.

I can't tell you exactly what the federal statutes say on that.

But it has been it has been done.

It's done in lots of states.

These are generally kids who are young people who were brought here as children have grown up here and, you know, so, you know, what do we do with them?

You know, we we tell them, no, you can't go to college.

It's ridiculous that the, But does that mean we should give them a break on in-state tuition?

And does that mean they should be treated any better than an out-of-state student, not the graduate?

From whom did they graduate from?

A from a Kansas high school, yes.

You know, so, I mean, you know, do they live in Kansas?

Yes.

You know, but the but but but the the problem here and I want to go back to what you were talking about.

The first part of this report is that we have really, really harmed ourselves, with the anti-immigrant, with the immigrant bashing that's been going on in this country.

This is a red herring.

So, you know, it's not what it is.

You're getting completely off topic.

I don't know, I, I was like, I don't I don't I don't know why, I don't know why.

You just don't dedicate a series of columns calling on the state legislature to do the right thing and just say, let's open up in-state tuition for everybody in America, and the problem goes away.

Well, it has nothing to do with it, is it?

There's no graduation there was it.

There would be no differentiation, but you would be in full compliance with federal law.

I can pull it up my phone, show you exactly where it is in in section eight 505, in the 1996 law.

So it absolutely is federal law.

That's the whole reason is being challenged.

I want to actually it's been challenged now in five other states, actually six other states and five of the states.

The states have already come into compliance, realizing they were out of step with federal law, and they've ended the program entirely.

But so all they have to do is offer in-state tuition to everybody else in America at the same rate, and the problem goes away.

Okay, there's nothing to do with immigrant.

Let me.

Let me go.

Lisa, get in here real quick.

Wow.

I remember this debate eight years ago in the House of Representatives, and, I remember, former Representative Dalia Garcia and Representative Tom Sawyer who talked about the issue.

And I again, and for the people, if you went to elementary school, junior high school or middle school, they call it now.

And you graduated from one of our high schools here.

It's not fair for the counterpart to see their, classmates not be able to, benefit from the same, option.

Don't we want people to, get a better education?

Don't we want them to?

My daughter graduated from the IB program at Wichita East High.

And, you know, don't we want them to be able to compete on a global level to, keep our young people here, our young professionals and everybody, benefit in the economic, process, of everybody getting this higher education.

All right, last word, Diane.

I just want to talk about why the tuition is high, why the tuition is going up, which was the first part of this report.

And at Wichita State University, it's gone up because they have lost all the foreign students, or at least a vast percentage of the foreign students that they used to get who not only pay out-of-state tuition, they pay out international tuition, which is even higher, and they pay the whole thing.

And they were carrying they were carrying the load for a lot of local kids.

Yeah.

So that's we'll move on.

It is an interesting it's a controversial topic, that's for sure.

Kansas health care experts are warning a new federal loan cap taking effect July 1st could cripple the state's health care workforce.

A provision in the new Federal Budget Act cuts loans for advanced nursing degrees in half, leaving students enrolled for this August in limbo.

The policy imposes a $100,000 lifetime borrowing limit and a $20,000 annual cap, with tuition and housing costs easily exceeding $25,000 a year.

Advocates say that master's and doctoral degrees are now reconstructed as unaffordable.

Local health care leaders are warning the shortfall will intensify the workforce crisis and forced hospitals to close and abandon rural communities.

That's a scary issue.

We've already dealt, with hospitals closing in rural areas anyway.

Oh, absolutely.

And had we expanded Medicaid expansion years ago, some of those rural hospitals would not have closed.

And I've been talking to so many, CNAs, nurses, individuals in that industry.

You know, I represent, a Westerly Medical Center, Via Christi, Saint Joseph in my Senate district.

And, I've heard from individuals that are just concerned about even going into that field.

And, I just think that this with, whatever funding we're going to get for the rural hospitals, it's going to be beneficial to all to keep people out of the emergency rooms.

Is this bailout going to help hospitals at all?

Dion.

Yeah, it'll help some.

But the, we're we're back in the territory of you know, I didn't think the leopards would eat my face, you know, said the said the person who is in the leopards eating faces party.

You know, we keep voting for these people who keep doing these cuts, and they keep ruining rural health care.

And, you know, I don't I don't understand it.

I don't understand the the mentality that says, you know, I'm going to vote for the guy who's going to cut, who's going to cut my, my health care and closed my hospital.

You know, it just it doesn't make sense.

But, you know, I mean, if they, you know, this, this nursing shortage is, is horrible.

And those are the people who, you know, are going to be taking care of, you know, the people out there.

I mean, people here in Wichita, you know, we're going to have the we're going to have the Christi forever.

You know, we're going to have Wesley Medical Center forever.

But, you know, those people out in the in the hinterlands, you know, they're struggling just like their schools are.

We are already struggling, though, with with a lot of nurses are traveling nurses now because they can't find anything in Kansas and they pay higher.

Yes.

Well, it's a I think there are two different issues here.

There's a there's the cap for it for nurses, which I think obviously can have an effect on rural.

And then there is the money that's coming from the big beautiful bill to rural hospitals and on the, on the nursing piece there.

This this is a this is an educational reform issue.

So I think it was a good move by the Trump administration to be able to limit this.

College debt is a massive thing.

And what it's done is we've seen the increase in the availability of more federally backed loans.

What's happened is universities have tried to capture more and more of that money, and then they start to expand it, widen tuition.

It's going to go up, it's going to go up.

And it's it's just this self-perpetuating cycle and this problem over and over and over again.

So to think that you would need to go get a nursing degree.

And we're talking about in excess of 200,000, over $100,000 a year.

I mean, let's say you went and got that.

I mean, what rural hospital, even even a well-functioning, highly paid real hospital is going to pay you enough money in order to pay back that amount of debt?

I mean, so it's it's trying to solve a problem by limiting the amount of money this is informing, forcing institutions, educational institutions to, to find reform, to be able to provide a really good education through community colleges and other things without having to basically go into debt that you'll be in for the rest of your life.

Rural health care is an a completely different issue.

Medicaid expansion, there's no correlation that that would have saved all that's $0.88 on the dollar.

We need better reimbursement rates rather than Medicaid expansion.

Look at look at what happened with Indiana over 40% when they when they expand Medicaid is over enrollee projections in Indiana alone in 2023.

It came out it was $1 billion budget shortfall after they expanded Medicaid.

So what's going to happen is you're going to solve one problem by creating a completely different problem in the budget that this would absolutely bankrupt the state of Kansas.

And and the the answer is, well, the federal money will just be there to bail us out, except for when they start making federal cuts to Medicaid.

And then what's going to happen there?

Then the state taxpayer, the ones that are going to have to fit the bill for this.

Oh, so this is going to go ahead.

But I'm still for the people.

We're going to have healthier, individuals in Kansas.

We're going to save more lives.

You know, people before policy, people before money.

But but they'll have to pay for it.

Adjusting the reimbursement rates would be it would be a huge piece that that would be a huge help.

The other thing would do is actually allowing people to use Medicaid dollars beyond just locked into a hospital system.

There's a lot of different things in rural health care for preventative medicine, for generic medicine, things that are very, very low cost, that actually have better outcomes than just being fit into the hospital system.

And if they could be allowed to use those Medicaid dollars into those alternative systems, I think you would save money and you'd have better outcomes.

Any last word, Dion?

Yeah.

I just think, you know, we're going to need nurses.

We're going to have to pay for them.

And if the if the federal government then got to do it, then the state then the state government's got to do it.

And it just, you know, it costs what it costs.

And the problem is, you know, I mean, you could talk about making it more efficient.

Well, you know, we want nurses to be trained in the latest technology and the latest medicine.

We want them to be up to speed up to date.

And if you start cutting that, then the whole thing falls.

Right.

And our last story today, a new independent poll is offering the first clear snapshot of the crowded races that are shaping up for the August 4th primary.

On the Democratic side, State Senator Cindy Holsinger leads the gubernatorial field with 37%, while over 40% of voters remain undecided.

For the U.S.

Senate nomination, Pastor Adam Hamilton is facing the crowded Democratic field with 18%, but the opposing party sees an equally fierce battle as a seven way Republican gubernatorial primary is looming to replace outgoing Governor Laura Kelly.

Heavyweights like state Senate President Tim Masterson and Insurance Commissioner Vicky Schmitz are anchoring that primary contest as both parties prepare for a multimillion dollar ad blitz to capture uncommitted voters.

Let's talk about this gubernatorial race.

It's it's a crowded race.

Dion.

It seems like, especially on the Republican side, it should should a couple of candidates drop out of the Republican side?

There's seven people in that.

There are 3 or 4 that clearly don't have very much traction at all.

Well, I mean, it's too late to drop out, you know, you can't get your name off the ballot.

That's true.

But the, Yeah.

You know, I mean, why didn't why didn't they run the poll that everybody wants to see, you know, which is Masterson versus Masterson versus Holsinger and Hamilton versus Marshall.

Those are the polls that everybody wants to see, you know, and they limited this to the to the primaries.

But you know, that you know, it just, you know, it just strikes me that, I mean, the poll said what I pretty much was sensing all along that that Indy holster has a lot of momentum, from the Democratic side.

And it just seems like the, you know, there's there's there's trends in this that, you know, the the first one is that we alternate between Republicans and Democrats at governor.

We often do.

Yes.

And the second one is that, when Democrats run a woman, they win.

And that's been going on for a long time.

So, Ben Davis, I'll let you get in here first before going to Alisa.

Let's talk about the gubernatorial race first.

The you know, we we have a lot of candidates.

Ty Masterson is is, a positioning himself as the Trump candidate if he got Trump's endorsement.

Yeah, absolutely.

Absolutely.

But let me ask you this question.

If Ty Masterson wins the primary, the GOP primary, is there any way that any middle of the road voter or any left centric central left voter is ever going to vote for Ty Masterson now that he has positioned himself with Donald Trump?

Look, I, I, I don't I've not seen the polls.

I don't know where the trends are for that.

I think voters make up their mind based a lot on their pocketbook and a lot of other kind of kitchen table issues.

And my hope is that any voter, middle of the road, Democrat or whatever, are going to listen to both candidates, listen to the visions that they have, adjudicate the plans and see what was what's going to be better for me in the short, in the long term, and ultimately better for for this state.

I I've yet to hear one thing come out of the Democrat side for the last eight years, other than, with all due respect that and then then then expand Medicaid, which is a loser issue.

Does not need to happen and needs to be wildly explained that it will bankrupt the state.

So that's the only thing I've heard coming out of Laura Kelly has not presented any kind of vision at all.

Her vision was, I'm I'm not Kris Kobach, and, I'm not in line with Donald Trump.

Therefore, you should vote for me.

But she's not giving Kansas a real compelling vision.

I'm not seeing it from the Democrat side.

I'm.

I'm with Tom Masterson in the primary.

I think the others should have gotten out.

I wish they would have gotten out, but they, you know, there's they're progressive and they didn't.

So it's a crowded thing.

I think he'll emerge victorious.

And I'm I'm relatively optimistic, that he'll emerge victorious in November as well.

Lisa, Laura Kelly positioned herself as a middle of the road person for the last two campaigns, and it did her very well.

Yes.

Yes, absolutely.

I think she's done a great job as governor.

And, me as a state legislator.

I served with a lot of these people that are running for governor.

And so I'm going to be able to work with whoever wins.

But I, have seen a poll where they, polled people on the issues, and it put Ethan, Senator Ethan Corson ahead, actually.

And I think that at the end you're going to see some, a run to the finish and it may flip flop a little bit of the other Democratic candidate.

And, again, I'm just ready for this race to be over.

And I've been telling all of my friends that my name is Mae West, and I'm glad I'm not in this mess.

And, you know, Ethan Corson did get Laura Kelley's endorsement.

Will he be able to use that for his to get him across the finish line?

Well, it certainly doesn't hurt.

I mean, it's just money, by the way.

You know, that's there's a lot of there's a lot of fundraising, ability there.

So.

No, I mean, and he's and he's a nice guy.

I mean, I've, you know, I have a problem with him, but it just, seems like Cindy's got a little bit more momentum right now.

All right, that's a wrap for this week.

Thank you so much to Alisa Foust Goudeau, Ben Davis and Diane Leffler for being here.

And thanks also to cake and CSN for sharing their video with us.

I'm Jared Cirillo.

We'll be off next week for a special holiday program.

Have a great 4th of July.