A decision made last week by the Kansas State Objections Board has stirred even more controversy over the makeup of the board. As the final decision-makers on who we, the Kansas electorate, get to vote for or against in our primary and general elections, its imperative objections raised are given fair and meaningful consideration by an impartial body.
After watching the boards highly partisan actions this summer, its clear changes are necessary.
We said it in June, and well repeat it: Its time to adopt a State Objections Board thats impartial to election outcomes and singularly focused on honoring the Constitutions framework. No party should have singular power in making decisions about the names on a ballot.
This was evidenced again last week when the partisan objections board, comprised of designees from the Republican-held secretary of state, lieutenant governor and attorney generals offices voted to deny all but one of the 19 objections presented by attorney Pedro Irigonegaray about the validity of signatures submitted by an independent candidate for governor.
Among the issues raised regarding the signatures was the fact that one petition circulator who recorded more than 1,000 signatures over seven days would have had to spend 11 hours a day each day getting a signature once every 4.5 minutes.
That statistic casts serious doubt as to the validity of his signatures, even more so when you consider that his petitions included signatures from 20 different counties during that time span, Irigonegaray said.
Because the candidate hired an out-of-state company to collect the signatures of registered Kansas voters, five out-of-state residents gathered signatures for the petition drive. According to testimony provided at the hearing, petitions were signed by individuals residing at a hotel in Sioux Falls, S.D., a homeless shelter in Minnesota and a resort in Florida, and their residency could not be verified. Will Lawrence, who initiated the objection, told the board that hed called to confirm signature gatherers lived at the addresses provided but was not able to confirm by people at each site that it was the legal dwelling of the petition carrier.
When it comes to petition drives that place Kansans on the ballot, it should be required that only qualified members of the electorate are eligible to solicit signatures. Why should we have someone carrying a petition on any issue or for any candidate if they are not legally permitted to vote in our elections? We shouldnt.
To the credit of Brant Laue, Gov. Colyers chief counsel who served as the lieutenant governors designee, he asserted some of the candidates petition circulators should be brought in for questioning. His colleagues on the board didnt agree. In the end, only 323 signatures were denied by the board though more than 3,000 were argued to merit more scrutiny.
When the boards makeup includes the campaign donor of one of the candidates for governor, its no surprise that the objections board ruled to overlook the glaring inconsistencies of the filed petitions.
Topeka Democratic Sen. Anthony Hensley said earlier this week he intends to draft a bill ahead of the 2019 legislative session to change the composition of the objections board that determines the suitability of candidates for office when there is an objection to their filing. His Senate colleague Republican Dinah Sykes, who sits on the Senates Ethics and Elections committee also indicated lawmakers should review the current system. I think different perspectives always result in the best policy, she told The Wichita Eagle.
Allowing partisan politicians to determine the eligibility of candidates on the ballot undermines the trust Kansans have in their election system. A better system should be adopted that removes even the smallest appearance of partisanship.
We urge Sens. Hensley and Sykes to work together to advance this bipartisan idea at the Statehouse and bring greater certainty of fairness, transparency and trust to our election system.
The Topeka Capital-Journal
Review of petitions reek of deceit
