Modern Budgeting Dilemmas

When discussing the cost of living crisis, on this reel, a commenter posted: 

HCR 5022 - Mandated Sheriff Elections & Modified Oversight

TLDR; This amendment does 2 things 1) requires all counties to have sheriffs, which must be elected and 2) Removes the ability of the county District Attorney to remove the sheriff for misconduct. 

I like item 1, though,I have concerns that a county may have reasons for such a change that I do not understand. I don't like item 2, because the county has a better idea of what is happening than the AG would have.

Overall, I don’t see what problem is prompting us to modify the underpinning of our government in this instance.

Details:

Currently every county except Riley county has an elected sheriff. This constitutional amendment removes the provision under which *Riley county was able to combine the law enforcement for Manhattan and Ogden with county wide law enforcement and change to an advisory board.

Part 1: People decide who they want as the highest level law enforcement officer in their county seems like a great thing.  As always, it’s the second part that has the kicker.

Part 2: Only the AG can issue a conduct challenge for this specific elected position.  All other elected positions still follow the usual and customary practice of the District Attorney being able to issue a conduct challenge.  This gives me multiple concerns: 

• First and foremost being the District Attorney is in that county and knows what goes on there. * 
• Second is that it makes all county sheriffs first and foremost beholden to the AG in order to protect their office. 
• Third is that this is another amendment that shifts power into a smaller subset of state government.
• The amendment will allow Riley county to move back to having an elected sheriff, if they do, they may not revert back to their current organization.

Bottom line: No - I don't see a reason to modify our constitution for something that is already reality alongside a change the scope of accountability for the office.

Amendment viewable here: 

https://sos.ks.gov/elections/22elec/2022-General-Election-Constitutional-Amendment-HCR-5022.pdf

State Amendment HCR 5014

I know the political discussions can be stressful and exhausting, but it is so, so important that we talk through modifying the underlying foundation of our state government. This post covers the change to legislative powers found in amendment HCR 5014

TL;DR: HCR 5014 Modifies the checks and balances that prevent power imbalances in government. Vote No to maintain the current system of checks and balances. 

 Details: In the November election, we'll be asked to approve or reject 2 amendments to the state constitution. In this post, I want to talk about HCR 5014. This amendment would effectively give the legislature a line item veto by simple majority over every rule, regulation, and action, in whole or in part, taken by all parts of the executive branch with no legal recourse through the courts. 

 This effectively means they could negotiate with members of the legislature in order to get a 2/3 majority, then they can use a simple majority to reverse the implementation of whatever compromise they agreed to. They will have the ability to rewrite or negate rules and regulations in pieces, so they can pick and choose what laws are executed and the means by which they execute. 

 Effectively, they gain unchecked power over the implementation of law. This reversal of the separation of powers would remove incentive to compromise and moderate, which is crucial to a stable government. 

 To be clear: This amendment doesn't repeal regulation and cut burdensome red tape. It gives the legislature _POWER_ in order to control whether the laws they pass are actually implemented, and how the executive branch functions. 

  https://sos.ks.gov/elections/22elec/2022-General-Election-Constitutional-Amendment-HCR-5014.pdf