Federal lawsuit filed to determine constitutionality of Kansas' Convention of States 2/3 requirement

A federal lawsuit to reverse the ruling for a two-thirds majority requirement to pass a Convention of States (COS) application has been filed by plaintiffs Rep. Michael Murphy (R-Kingman, Reno, and Rice Counties) and Sen. Mike Thompson (R-Johnson County). The lawsuit, filed on December 22, 2023, will decide if the two-thirds majority requirement is constitutional.

“Attorney General Schmidt had given an opinion that he felt like the requirement for the two-thirds in the Kansas Constitution may not be constitutional because it puts the burden on the legislators that was not intended by the founders of the U.S. Constitution. That’s why we explored this route,” Rep. Murphy told The Kansas Constitutional over the phone.

The defendants include Speaker of the House Dan Hawkins (R-Sedgwick County) and Senate President Ty Masterson (R-Butler and Sedgwick Counties). While both defendants have previously voted in favor of passing the COS application, there is a difference in interpretation.

“While I support the Convention of States, I also swore an oath to uphold the Kansas  Constitution,” Speaker Hawkins said in a statement to The Kansas Constitutional via email. “There’s an interesting legal question here and that’s something the courts will have to sort out.”

All four members of the Kansas Legislature are acting to uphold the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions, but it will be the decision of the Court to decide whose interpretations are correct.

“There is a clear conflict between the Kansas Constitution and the stated procedures in the Federal Constitution with regard to calling an Article V convention that needs to be resolved,” Sen. Thompson told The Kansas Constitutional via email. “The Kansas Constitution creates a requirement for simply calling for an Article V convention that is tantamount to ratifying an amendment to the constitution. In fact, the Kansas Constitution singles out the application for an Article V convention for reasons that escape logic. The process of considering constitutional amendments should not be as burdensome as the actual ratification process, and the Kansas Constitution, in my opinion, imposes a limitation on our ability to simply consider changes to the U.S. Constitution through an Article V convention. This conflict in interpretations has impeded our ability to apply for an Article V convention even though a majority of the state legislature has voted to do so. I hope this lawsuit clears up the confusion and leads to a clear and uniform rule in our state constitution.”

Convention of States Kansas, the nonpartisan, grassroots activist organization pushing for a COS application, posted to social media that while they agree with the plaintiffs they are not a part of the lawsuit.

Should the Court agree that the two-thirds majority is unconstitutional, Kansas can become the 20th state of 34 needed states to pass a COS application to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution that may do the following:

• Impose fiscal restraints on the federal government

• Limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government

• Term limits on Congress and federal officials