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

Wichita leaders are bitterly divided over overhauling the city's public camping ordinance as shelters fill up.

In the scorching heat.

Plus, State Attorney General Kris Kobach pressures three Kansas cities to drop their conversion therapy bans.

But first, a high stakes legal battle just days ahead of the primary election reinstates the three day grace period for mail in ballots.

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

Hello and welcome to Kansas Week.

I'm Jared Cerullo.

A high stakes legal showdown just days ahead of the primary is now forcing a last minute shakeup for Kansas voters.

The state Court of Appeals has reinstated a three day grace period for mail in ballots.

The ruling blocs, for now, a 2025 law that sought to permanently eliminate the extra return window.

Secretary of state Scott Schwab urged the court to uphold the law in order to avoid voter confusion at this very late date.

But the appellate panel upheld a lower court injunction that cites constitutional concerns over due process and disqualifying legitimate votes.

Now, any mail in ballot postmarked by Election Day will count if it arrives within three days.

Here to discuss this and some of the week's other states and local news is State Representative John Carmichael.

State Representative Ford Carr and Sedgwick County Commissioner Stephanie Wise.

Thank you all for joining us today.

Representative Carmichael, let me start with you.

Mail in ballots.

This has been a back and forth discussion for the last decade, it seems.

Tell me your thoughts about this, this delay.

I think I have the unique distinction of being the only member of the Kansas legislature who actually voted against the three day extension when it was first passed about ten years ago.

And at that time, we didn't have the problems with mail delivery.

And interestingly enough, I've therefore changed my position.

As a result of changed circumstances.

And now it seems the very people who are advocating for a three day extension are advocating for just the opposite.

And their pattering, their remarks after what they hear from Washington.

What the court did was the Court of Appeals said that the three day extension remains in effect.

And then there was an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

State Supreme Court said if we change the rules now, we may disenfranchize people who are relying on the decision of the district court and the injunction that the district court in Lawrence, I think it was, put in place.

And what they reasoned was and it makes sense to me, is if you think there isn't a three day period, if that's what you've read, then you're going to get your ballot and it's going to get counted.

If, on the other hand, you relying on the court decision and you wait, and then we were to change the rules, then people would be disenfranchized who were relying on a court decision.

And so what the court said, comparing all the equities, there's far more harm, far more harm by throwing away ballots than there is by requiring election officials to count the ballots in the three days between Election Day and the final canvass of the votes.

So you're supportive of what has happened here?

I think the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals both did the right thing here.

And I think the district court judge did the right thing as well.

But we'll see how that works out as the case progresses through a full trial.

Should this be happening, Commissioner?

Right before a primary election.

You know, it just confuses everybody on what the rules are.

So I don't like that part.

The timing is a little rough.

As a Sedgwick County commissioner, I actually sit on that, board of canvassers.

And so I get to see how many votes come in that cannot be counted because they are not legally either signed correctly, dated correctly.

And I hate that.

I want every vote to count.

To me, it's labeled on my calendar, as Election Day, not Election week.

Tuesday's election day.

It would be very clear if everybody just counted on that.

And with mail delays, you never want to rely on mail.

Something so late that you're depending on the US Postal Service to have your vote count.

So I just urge people as soon as you can mail in a ballot, mail it.

It don't wait till the last day.

We want your votes to count.

As far as the confusion with this election, I'm glad we will have some, grace period for folks, but I think we need to.

We need to set the expectations, and we really need to see it through so that we're not confusing voters every single time we have a vote come up.

Representative Carr, there are some arguments that we shouldn't be using the mail system at all.

Do you agree with that?

I disagree.

If we can't trust our government, then we have no government at all.

The mail is is it's a governmental entity.

So, it's unfortunate that you can mail a postcard to yourself, on a Monday, and you won't get that postcard back until, you know, quite likely Thursday.

That's a travesty in itself.

But, you know, when we're talking about free and fair elections and we have an election date, you should be able to provide your ballot up until the election date.

Is is no more.

And if our mail system, which, again, it's a governmental entity, it's it's.

But it's part of our government.

If they're incapable of providing the service, then we're talking about a different issue.

And it should never come down to, us discounting votes and not counting votes because of the fact that, that one of our agencies was unable to perform.

So are you supportive of the three day grace period at all?

Absolutely.

I mean, if if if you could receive the mail overnight, then I would say, great.

You know, we can allow just the mail to arrive overnight, but if it takes three days for the post office to deliver a letter, then quite certainly we should allow those those three days, provided that you get it postmarked at the right time.

Yeah.

Representative.

Respond to what the commissioner said about becoming election.

It used to be election day, but now, when did we move to election week or even election month?

And you know, I cannot.

Well, the legislation was passed in my first or second year in the legislature to extend it by the three days.

And everybody but me was in favor of that at the time.

The problem is we have a man sitting in Washington who's the president, who for some reason thinks elections are over based upon the count that we see on election night.

And he's been misled and off on this crazy tangent that everything has to be counted and done on election night, it doesn't work that way.

I've worked for the election commissioner, I've worked as a lawyer, and election law done this for years.

There's a lot of things that go on, and that's part of what the commissioner does, is she considers those provisional ballots and decides which ones will be counted, which ones won't.

But that doesn't happen on election night.

And it's always been that way.

You know, there there have always been provisional ballots that have been counted after Election Day.

Very few times.

Does it actually change the outcome of a race?

But it has happened.

Yeah.

I mean, I think there's a difference between having a final vote the day of the election and having a deadline of when those votes should be there to be counted.

And I just think that, you know, I raised my kids and kids the same way.

When I have a deadline or an expectation, I want them to meet that the more we give grace periods, the more we're going to continue.

Given what's the saying?

You give an inch and they take a mile.

So I just clarity, whatever that is.

Let's be clear.

And and I think deadlines on a date rather than three days if received by, you know, whatever time a clock, it's out of those people's control.

And that's what I hate for them is, a word depending on mail.

And really, if we can just really celebrate what Election Day is and, and encourage those that can go to go on Election Day on or before, let's keep reaching that.

Let's keep encouraging that vote early.

Yes.

Vote early if it's in-person early, if it's by mail, vote early.

And then you won't have to worry about these things.

Yeah.

All right.

Great.

State Attorney General Chris Kovac is turning up the heat on three.

Kansas City's over municipal bans on conversion therapy.

Kovac is demanding that Lawrence, Prairie Village and Roland Park repealed their ordinances within 60 days.

The crackdown follows a U.S.

Supreme Court ruling that similar restrictions violate First Amendment free speech rights.

Roland Park enacted the state's first municipal ban in 2020, with Lawrence and Prairie Village following in 2021.

Violations of the local ordinances carry fines up to $1,000.

Roland Park says its city attorney is reviewing the letter, while other cities are declining to comment.

Attempts to pass a statewide ban in the Kansas legislature have repeatedly failed.

Representative Karl, I'll start with you first.

First off, your thoughts on this one?

It's, obviously a controversial topic, but obviously controversial.

You know, you know, this topic and all of those that are associated with it.

It's it's an invasion of someone's privacy.

You know, I don't I don't even know why.

This is why this is a thing.

You know, we should allow people to to live the life that they want to live.

And that's just across the board.

I, you know, I don't even like giving these these these kinds of things energy.

Because we make more of it than it than it should be.

You know, you should be able to live your life, the way you want to live it and not be concerned with, you know, this, these trivial trivializes that, that, that come along with, you know, something like this.

And again, all of those other, attempts at invasion of people's privacy that go along with.

But what about children, though?

I mean, the story here doesn't this doesn't distinctly say whether we're dealing with children or adults.

Adults is one thing.

But what about children?

So the children, obviously, it's a parent's choice, right?

Again, for someone to knock on my front door and decide that they're going to come into my house and tell me what to do.

One way or another.

I just again, this and anything like it, I'm just, I don't even know why why we have these discussions.

You know, this is what takes place in my house.

What?

What takes place in your house is your business.

Commissioner, it's.

I think basically the argument sometimes is this.

These should be decisions left up to patients in their caregivers.

Their doctors.

Agree.

Disagree.

Agree.

I think we can have different moral or policy views on this topic, as you said.

But what we really need to decide, I would think what our attorney general is doing very well is whether government, has the constitutional authority to, those private conversations between, you know, a therapist and their client or a counselor in their client.

So this is a constitutional discussion.

I don't think it's really even the topic of conversion as much as should this be controlled by government?

And where does the Constitution, lead us?

Do you believe this should be controlled by government?

No, I don't I don't think it's constitutional.

And I think that that's what our attorney general is saying.

We who are we to control what happens in that room?

I don't know.

I there's certain things that, you know, we want we need government for some of these things, and we need government to stay out of, of it, too.

And I think he's doing the right thing by calling this out.

Representative Carmichael, let me put on my retired lawyer hat.

We have lots of statutes and ordinances in Kansas that have been ruled unconstitutional.

Or we know from other cases in other states that if they're challenged, they will be found unconstitutional.

Kris Kobach is just trying to stir up trouble, because if he really wants to start dealing with unconstitutional statutes and ordinances, I would suggest that the criminal sodomy laws are where he ought to start, because in this case, in this state, it is on the books that it is against the law for two consenting adults of the same sex who are not married to have sexual relations.

Now, the court, the United States Supreme Court in the mid 70s, as I recall 50 years ago, determined that these types of statutes are unconstitutional, unenforceable.

Yet it remains on the books here in Kansas.

This is a matter of Kris Kobach looking for a hot button issue to get people stirred up.

Nobody's being prosecuted in Lawrence or Overland Park for conversion therapy or counseling people one way or another.

If there is a prosecution, then the law provides that you can raise a constitutional defense if you have one.

And I'm sure that people who want to do conversion therapy might hearken to the recent Supreme Court decision, but we don't fully know what that decision means.

The court issues a ruling, but then each of the circuit courts apply that general principle of ruling to specific circumstances.

And so the Supreme Court doesn't rule by edict.

It rules by a system of laws and judges.

So I think this is just another example of Kris Kovach trying to stir up trouble, because he thinks that'll get more people to vote for him, and that'll help him raise more money for his campaigns.

And that's exactly what will happen when we start selecting judges under a popular election system.

Who had had to with that, Jeff had to get that in representative car.

I'll give you the last word.

Is this really what the government needs to be focusing on?

Is this what the people want, the government, our state government to be focusing on, or are there more important things to deal with?

The definitely more important things to do and, however, I do have to, lean on the words of my colleague, as I do frequently.

The there's a lot of that that goes on, you know, especially during, you know, this election season that we're in.

You know, we have a lot of individuals that are simply looking for, you know, front page news time.

And I think that, in fact, that's what we have here.

Again, it's it's something that, something that unforeseen is going to be, you know, virtually impossible.

Stay out of people's lives so long as it.

Wichita leaders are bitterly divided over a controversial proposal to overhaul the city's public camping ordinance.

Are.

Lily Lou is pushing to remove a mandatory rule that prohibits police from enforcing the camping ban unless an open shelter bed is available?

Woo says the change is needed to address mounting citizen frustration and ease city liability, but critical council members are warning that the move is inhumane and fails to tackle the root cause of homelessness.

Police report nearly 400 cases of dispersing encampments so far just this year alone.

The debate heads back to the Wichita City Council table next week.

Commissioner, I'll start with you.

You're not on the city council, but, you definitely deal with Wichita problems, for sure.

Is this the right thing to do?

Basically, the argument here is that how can we kick people off the streets or or continue to force them down the road if there's no other place for them to go?

We need a place for them to go.

I think that it's, unloving to let them live on the streets, having mental breakdowns on the streets and public displays of that.

Now, we can't just swing about one time and fix this problem.

I think that, you know, it is, compassionate to to care to get those people into a home of some sort, whatever their next step is.

But mental health is a real is a real struggle.

And some of these people don't want housing.

And that's a problem that we need to decide as a community what's acceptable.

Again, accountability is love.

Compassion is, giving people that hand up, but they also have to the grab the hand and take the help.

We have a lot of services within Wichita, so many that people come here or refer people to our community to receive those services.

We're good on services.

We need a place for them to go.

If they are unable to get stabilized into long term housing.

Representative Carmichael, the commissioner, mentioned, a lot of people and a lot of other people have as well, about many of the people that are causing this problem, for lack of a better word, don't want the help they're choosing to live out there.

What what do we do with those people?

We've been talking about the root cause of homelessness for decades now, and it's not getting any better.

You know, we see the same tape literally week after week, played by the same stations.

They don't even have to go out and make new video anymore because they've got such a file.

This has been here so long and it hasn't been fixed.

We can't enforce our way out of homelessness.

That's not the way to cure homelessness in a community by arresting people and then housing them.

I assume in the county jail, which is full.

And and we really need felons and dangerous people to be there.

But what is it?

You can't just go around and arrest people.

This idea that that'll just make the problem go away or may be out of sight, out of mind.

That doesn't solve the problem either.

As the commissioner says, we've provided a lot of resources in Wichita.

There are a lot of things out there, but anecdotally at least, if you build shelters, they will they will come.

And I'm afraid that when you have one community that offers a higher level of services, that you may have people from other communities who migrate here because of the availability of a real good meal at the Lord's Diner, for example.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have the Lord's Diner.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have shelters, but ultimately it requires it requires resources.

It requires financial resources.

And let's face it, ever since Newt Gingrich was in politics, we've been starving the beast of government because it seems like commissioners and representatives, we can't cut spending, at least according to the star of the beast theory.

So what we do is we just cut off the taxes.

We just reduce the taxes to where we don't have the money to pay for homelessness.

We don't have the money to pay for new fire stations.

We don't have the money for a lot of things.

And I know there's an election on Tuesday, so I'll be careful what I say, but I think we may have cut our income tax in Kansas too far.

And as a result, we're relying on property tax to deal with problems like this.

And we can't push property tax any further.

Voters aren't going to put up with it.

Same thing with the sales tax.

Representative Carr, your colleague mentioned that it seemed to seem to mention that if we give more, they'll take more.

Does that seem to be how it is?

Well, I mean, any time you offer something, you'll get takers.

So, I have to agree with that.

I also agree with the fact that, this is this is, in essence, a financial issue.

And, since we are jabbing, today, legalization of marijuana, legalization of cannabis would provide the additional resources, the additional income, the additional financing, that would help us combat the situations problems.

It would solve tons of problems.

You know, it's right there.

Officers who are chasing people around for a little bit of marijuana, they could probably be helping the homeless population find home.

Absolutely.

You know, it takes resources and resources.

You know, it all comes down to finance.

So, we can't solve this issue by increasing, property taxes.

So let's just let's let's do it.

Other, communities have done and let's, let's legalize cannabis, and then we would have, you know, what would you know at this point, you know, would be $1 billion industry and we could solve some of these issues.

Commissioner, I'll give you the last word in any response to that.

We're missing out on a revenue stream by rising cannabis.

Other states, just about every other state around Kansas has done it now.

So Nebraska.

Well, you've got an addiction problem.

We've got a drug problem.

And I don't think adding one mor functioning or brain activity is going to solve a problem either.

So no, I don't agree that we just need to legalize marijuana and use the funds for that.

But I do agree that the government can't just keep throwing money at things.

We've got to find a way that the community can, be involved in some of these, solutions.

It's we don't we can't depend on government to solve everything.

We need the community to step up.

We need churches to step up.

We need, a lot of, engagement on this topic.

And we need to love our neighbor as well, and, and and help them get through this and understand there's dual diagnosis out there.

There's people that have, you know, multiple issues that they that are keeping them on the street.

And sometimes, we need to be more reasonable that one one fix doesn't fix all.

And there's it's so complex.

That's why it's so hard to solve, throwing money at.

It's not going to do that.

It's not going to solve it.

Yeah.

The money that he helps us helps.

And we're not stopping anyone quickly.

We're not stopping anyone that that that uses cannabis from using it.

They're they've got it, you know, they know how to get it.

And we should at least be able to take advantage of the revenue that we can be derived from it.

So the future of one of Wichita's most iconic landmarks is hanging in the balance.

Once again.

The owner of the nearly century old Crown Uptown Dinner Theater has officially submitted a demolition permit.

The move follows months of deadlock after the city previously denied requests to expand the venue's capacity.

Community leaders and neighborhood residents are vowing to fight the tear down.

They're questioning why selling the property was never explored.

City officials emphasize that submitting an application does not mean the permit has been granted.

The building must still clear extensive reviews, utility disconnects and historic significance assessments before demolition work can begin.

Representative Carl, let me give you the first word on this one.

It's property.

It's a property rights battle here.

Does it seem that's what it seems like?

It doesn't it?

It it does appears as though that's what it is, you know, I remember the tell my entire life, you know, you know, just on a personal note, you know, I would hate to see it.

Not there.

You know, arguably, though, the owner of the property has the right to do what they want to with their property.

You know, I just I find it difficult to believe that that, a solution can't be reached.

You know, where everyone is satisfied, and, and again, and we don't lose, you know, a historical building like, Crown up down.

Yeah.

Commissioner here that you don't dealing with this specific zoning question.

But, tell me your thoughts on this one.

Should should the demolition go forward or be allowed to go forward or, you know, you've got two different groups of people trying to tell a property owner what to do with their property.

So of course, that's where the tension lies.

I would like to think that they're somewhere in the middle where economic development can.

Mary.

What?

This, owner's plans are, and what financially, it can support.

You know, College Hill is a really unique neighborhood with really great things.

And, one thing, they don't have a lot of is parking.

But what they do have is a lot of, really great small local businesses that that thrive there.

So I think we can get more creative in a solution.

I haven't been in on those conversations.

I would have loved to, be in the conversation because I think I could help, maybe dream up some creative solutions.

But I mean, man, crown up town.

I remember going to plays growing up as a kid.

They had princess plays during the day with my church groups.

I would love to see it stay, but we need to be considering what what options does this owner have if they cannot provide the parking or the economic factors to own this building and operate it?

Yeah, and she mentioned this.

The parking is what's what's to blame here.

All right.

Well that's he had asked the city.

The owner had asked the city for more parking in the city did not.

That's what the city denied more parking space.

But he also though as I understand it, wants to increase the capacity of the building and it wants to do it without installing fire sprinklers.

When he purchased that building, he knew the parking situation.

He knew what the ordinance required as far as sprinklers and capacity limits.

Presumably, he bought the building at a discounted price because of those impediments.

And it looks to me like he's trying to blackmail us collectively by saying, if you don't let me violate the rules that I entered this game under.

In other words, the statutes and ordinances and zoning ordinances.

If you don't let me break those rules, then I'm just going to take all my toys and tear the place down.

It's a historic building, I hope.

I agree with the council, the Commissioner, that we ought to be able to find a way to figure this one out.

But I would say one thing.

I don't think that this is where we ought to be investing, development district, some governmental money.

We're already apparently doing that.

Marguerite is right down the street who's in direct competition with Harry's next door.

So that's not the this is not one of those projects.

All right.

Thanks.

That's a wrap for this week.

Thank you so much John Carmichael.

Ford car Stephanie Wise for being here.

Thanks also to K and CSN for sharing their video.

I'm Jared Cirillo.

Have a great weekend.