Testimony on Kansas Senate Bill 211

7/29/2019 Testimony on Kansas Senate Bill 211

1/126


2/126


3/126


4/126


5/126


6/126


7/126

March 13, 2013

TestimonySenate Ethics, Elections and Local Government Committee

SB 211 - Elections; municipalities; primary and general elections; date change; partisan

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

SB 211is very similar to

HB 2126which I introduced several years ago.

To summarize, although our economy is improving, we still face budget challenges that we must address.

Therefore, it is crucial that we look at everything we do as a state government to make sure we are streamlining

all actions between state, county and local governments.

One area in which to find cost savings is to have any election process scheduled in either August or Novemberto coincide with our state and federal elections.

There are several benefits to the proposed changes in SB 211:

State and local governments could save money by not requiring polls to be open as often or on as manydates during the year.

Voter turnout would be increased for these elections; many of these critical elections are often decidedby only a few voters and an extremely small percentage of the electorate participate in the election

process.

I believe that the Secretary of States office has additional reasons to support moving spring elections to the fallwhich they will share with the committee. I believe its important to continue to work with the Secretary of

States office to have a bill that meets the goal of moving the elections but allows the implementation to be as

soon as possible.

In conclusion SB 211 should save money and increase participation as we work together to improve our great


8/126

Testimony to Senate Standing Committee on Ethics, Elections and Local Government as proponent of

SB 211: Elections; municipalities; primary and general elections; date change; partisan.

Bob Weeks, March 13, 2013

Chairman Pyle and members of the Committee:

Thank you for allowing me to present testimony in favor of SB 211, which would move city and school board elections

from the spring of odd-numbered years to the fall of even-numbered years to coincide with state and national elections.

I've gathered statistics for elections in Sedgwick County, and these numbers show that voter turnout in spring electionsis much lower than in fall elections. (For these statistics I count the August primary as part of the fall election cycle.)

Since 2000, turnout for fall elections, both primary and general, has been 44 percent. Over the same period, spring

elections turnout has been 18 percent.

Remarkably, a special Wichita citywide election in February 2012 with just one question on the ballot had voter turnout

of 13.7 percent. One year earlier, in April 2011, the spring general election had four of six city council districts contested

and a citywide mayoral election. Turnout was 12.8 percent, less than for a single-question election.

The problem of low voter participation in off-cycle elections is not limited to Sedgwick County or Kansas. In her paper

"Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups", Sarah F. Anzia writes "A well developed literature has

shown that the timing of elections matters a great deal for voter turnout. ... When cities and school districts hold

elections at times other than state and national elections, voter turnout is far lower than when those elections are held

at the same time as presidential or gubernatorial elections."

In the same paper, Anzia explains that when voter participation is low, it opens the door for special interest groups to

dominate the election: "When an election is separated from other elections that attract higher turnout, many eligible

voters abstain, but interest group members that have a large stake in the election outcome turn out at high rates

regardless of the increase in the cost of voting. Moreover, interest groups efforts to strategically mobilize supportive

voters have a greater impact on election outcomes when overall turnout is low. Consequently, the electoral influence of

interest groups is greater in off-cycle elections than in on-cycle elections. As a result, the policy made by officials elected

in off-cycle elections should be more favorable to dominant interest groups than policy made by officials elected in on-

cycle elections." (Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups, Sarah F. Anzia, Stanford University,

Journal of Politics, April 2011, Vol. 73 Issue 2, p 412-427, version online at

http://gsppi.berkeley.edu/faculty/sanzia/Election_Timing_5_19_10.pdf.)

I urge this committee to support moving the spring elections to be held in conjunction with the fall state and national


9/126

DateElection

Time

Election

Type

Registered

VotersBallots Cast

Turnout

PercentageRemarks

2/26/2013 Spring Primary 90,445 4,276 4.7%Contests in 3 of 6 Wichita City Councildistricts. Poor weather with schools closed

on election day and before.

11/6/2012 Fall General 274,369 184,713 67.3%

8/7/2012 Fall Primary 265,185 54,735 20.6%

2/28/2012 Special Special 195,630 26,875 13.7% Only one question on the ballot.

4/5/2011 Spring General 259,532 33,170 12.8%Contests in 4 of 6 Wichita City Council

districts. Wichita mayoral election.

3/1/2011 Spring Primary 201,246 15,597 7.8%11/2/2010 Fall General 259,888 136,398 52.5%

8/3/2010 Fall Primary 255,829 65,443 25.6%


districts.

3/3/2009 Spring Primary 65,538 6,352 9.7%Contests in 2 of 6 Wichita City Council

districts.

11/4/2008 Fall General 261,128 194,688 74.6%

8/5/2008 Fall Primary 241,052 36,724 15.2%8/7/2007 Special Special 235,236 103,926 44.2% Only casino and slots questions.



2/27/2007 Spring Primary 193,479 24,730 12.8%Contests in 3 of 6 Wichita City Council


11/7/2006 Fall General 232,808 118,258 50.8%

8/1/2006 Fall Primary 229,942 37,617 16.4%

4/5/2005 Spring General 232,317 89,129 38.4%3/1/2005 Spring Primary 100,082 11,130 11.1%

11/2/2004 Fall General 229,326 179,222 78.2%

8/3/2004 Fall Primary 207,513 47,184 22.7%

4/1/2003 Spring General 201,796 64,862 32.1%

2/25/2003 Spring Primary 172,077 46,680 27.1%

11/5/2002 Fall General 232,739 122,202 52.5%

8/6/2002 Fall Primary 229,449 57,817 25.2%

4/3/2001 Spring General 233,060 28,036 12.0%

2/27/2001 Spring Primary 108,340 8,699 8.0%

11/7/2000 Fall General 252,217 164,624 65.3%

Sedgwick County Elections


10/126


11/126


12/126

Kansas Family Policy Council

2250 N. Rock Road #118-250

Wichita, KS 67226

316-993-3900

Testimony supporting SB 211

Robert Noland - Executive Director

Kansas Family Policy Council

March 13, 2013

The Kansas Family Policy Council is associated with Focus on the Family, Citizenlink and Family Research

Council nationally and we work to strengthen and promote family policy at the state and local levels in Kansas.

Part of our mission is to develop active and engaged citizens across the state.

It is that part of our mission that has spurred me to appear before your committee today. We seek to engage

Kansans in an active citizenship which is well informed and engaged in the process of governance at all levels

of government. In addition to actively registering voters, we provide pertinent information to our supporters

about public policy issues directly affecting the family from across the nation and here in Kansas.

We believe that SB 211 should be enacted for a number of reasons.

Increased Voter Participation

First among these reasons is to encourage an increased participation in the local election process. In recent

years, spring elections have suffered a dearth of involvement and in many cases, voter turnout in spring

elections to select key leaders in our communities represents a very small portion of registered voters. While

there are likely many reasons for this, we believe that moving local elections to November when otherelections are held will greatly enhance the voter participation rate in local races.

Most everyone would agree that it is an important civic duty to participate in all opportunities to elect our

leaders. Despite this fact many fail to avail themselves to the opportunity during local elections. It is often

said that the more things change the more they stay the same however it does seem that the busyness of


13/126

participation in local races and voters will be more informed about the candidates appearing on their ballots.

Moving local elections to an August-November time frame would also create only one election season every

two years in which voters could fulfill their civic duty to vote in federal, state, local and municipal elections all

at once.

Potential Cost Savings

There are likely costs savings to be realized by consolidating local elections with federal and state elections in

an August-November time frame. Conducting local, state and federal elections concurrently in the fall would

eliminate the cost to counties of poorly attended local elections in the spring those resources could be used

for other purposes. While the cost associated with local spring elections most certainly varies from one county

to another, moving to an August-November election cycle could create added savings for counties which

already incur the cost associated with existing biannual federal and state elections.

In spring elections the participation rate varies among cities and counties, but usually ends up somewhere in

the low teens and is usually also dependent on whether primary or general elections are required for a

number of local races. Statewide, AugustNovember elections cycles usually garner voter participation

ranging from 18% to 30% in primary elections and from 65% to 72% in general elections with November

election turnout usually somewhat higher in presidential election years.

There are fixed costs associated with holding an election at any time of the year such as paying poll workers,

transporting equipment, mailing/printing ballots etc. Given the low participation rate in spring elections, costs

of conducting spring elections on a per-voter basis are considerably higher than those same per-voter costs

associated with a fall election with much higher turnout. Combining the spring and fall elections would

maximize those per-voter costs by ensuring they occur at a time when more voters normally participate.

Voter Awareness

During fall election cycles, it seems a larger number of voters are more attentive to the process of selecting

their leaders and devote more time to learning about the candidates. This is driven in part by political

advertising, but the media also seems to be more thorough in its coverage of candidates and issues leading up

to fall elections. Adding local and municipal candidates to the ballot in a fall election cycle would potentially

raise voter awareness of candidates in these races. It would also likely prompt voters to learn more about the

views and positions of local candidates more so than currently occurs in the spring election cycle.

Additionally, we believe moving local elections to the fall ballot would have great potential in creating more

accountability to the voters from their locally elected leaders. It is entirely possible with controversial issues

and important economic issues finding their way into local and municipal government more often than ever

before moving elections to the fall would raise the awareness of voters to candidate positions and party


14/126

DATE: March 13, 2013

TO: Senate Committee on Ethics, Elections and Local Government

FROM: Randy E. Stookey, General Counsel

Kansas Grain and Feed Association (KGFA)Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association (KARA)

RE: Written testimony in support of SB 211, regarding elections, municipalities, and date changefor primary and general elections.

Chairman Pyle and members of the Committee on Ethics, Elections and Local Government, thank you

for allowing us the opportunity to provide written testimony in support of SB 211.

The KGFA is a voluntary state-wide trade association with a membership encompassing the entire

spectrum of the grain receiving, storage, processing and shipping industry in the state of Kansas.

KARAs membership includes over 700 agribusiness firms that are primarily retail facilities which

supply fertilizers, crop protection chemicals, seed, petroleum products and agronomic expertise to

Kansas farmers.

Our member associations support SB 211. We believe that moving the date of the state and local

primary elections to coincide with the federal elections will provide crucial cost savings to the stateand local communities at a time when minimizing these expenses is becoming increasingly important.

Additionally, as our state taxation and budgeting methodology continues to evolve to support thegrowth in industry, employment, and personal and family incomes, we believe that SB 211 will lead to

a greater participation by the state electorate to weigh in on these important decisions.

We thank this Committee for the opportunity to provide written comments on behalf of the KansasGrain and Feed Association and the Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association. We would ask the


15/126


16/126

February 21, 2012

Honorable Kansas State Senator Dennis Pyle

Chairman, Senate Ethics, Elections and Local Government Committeeand Distinguished Members of the Committee

Re: Senate Bill 211, Concerning City & School Elections

Chairman Pyle and Distinguished Committee Members,

As Chairman of the Elections Legislation Committee for the Kansas County Clerks and Election Officials Association, Ithank you for your time in allowing me to testify on this bill. The KCCEOA last year adopted a resolution that opposesmoving the City and Schools Elections from the spring of even-numbered years to the fall of odd-numbered years. Wehave identified several issues that must be considered prior to making such a change.

By moving these elections to coincide with other federal, state and local elections we will have to print two ballots toinclude all the races. This will make it much easier for mistakes to be made at the polling place by both electionworkers and by voters. This also makes it more difficult to verify the number of ballots voted when performing audits.

The number of races will make it more difficult for voters to be able to study issues when making their choices. Thereare other issues that need to be brought to a public election periodically and it is important to have one general electionper year to avoid the need for several special elections for sales tax, bonds or other issues. We also feel that holdingelections every two years will make it much harder to recruit and retain experienced poll workers. This will be anotherfactor that will cause election errors to increase.

The Kansas County Clerks and Election Officials work hard to make sure that Kansas Elections are administered in aprofessional manner. We oppose this bill because we feel that the resulting elections will be much harder to manage

and there will be problems at the polls. We ask that you carefully consider these factors in making your decision on thismatter. Thank you for allowing me to testify and for allowing me to share the reasons that I do not support this change.

Sincerely,


17/126


18/126


19/126


20/126


21/126


22/126


23/126


24/126


25/126


26/126


27/126

214 SW 6

thStreet, Suite 300

Topeka, KS 66603

785-235-1307

[email protected]

Neutral on SB 211Senate Elections Committee

February 21, 2013

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Im Kent Cornish,

President/Executive Director of the Kansas Association of Broadcasters. We represent nearly280 radio and television stations across the state.

We are neutral on this bill, but I want you to know about a couple of potential impacts oncampaigns if all elections are held in the fall of even numbered years. As you are very aware,many candidates for federal, state, and local elections use commercial broadcasting as ameans of getting their message out to voters. As you also may be aware, the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) only mandates that federal candidates be offered

reasonable access to broadcast air time for elections.

Local broadcasters in Kansas historically have accommodated most, if not all races whetherfederal, state or local. Yet there is only so much broadcast air time available particularly intelevision and larger city radio stations. In a year where there is a U.S. House race, possibly aU.S. Senate race combined with Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, InsuranceCommissioner along with state legislative races, commercial air time can get used up ratherquickly.

If now you add mayoral, city council and school boards to the mix, there is a possibility someraces will not be able to campaign through local broadcasters. Let me emphasize that this isnot about dollars and cents to our members, but about being responsive to our viewers andlisteners.

Meanwhile on the news side of things being able to provide proper coverage of all the races
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


28/126

Testimony before the

Senate Committee on Ethics, Elections and Local Government

on

SB 211 Municipal Elections

by

Gail Billman, School Board Member, USD 506 Labette County

Kansas Association of School Board Region 3 Vice President

March 13, 2013

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on SB 211. The bill would make the following

changes in the election laws for local board members. First, it would move the election date for all local

elections from the April of odd-numbered years to November of even-numbered years. Second, it would

require elections to be on a partisan basis. Third, it would have board member take office in January,

rather than July. Along with the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB), I strongly oppose each of

those changes.

I was a participant at KASBs Delegate Assembly this past December. There was much support

to approve a resolution called First in Education, the Kansas Way. This resolution, which wasoverwhelmingly adopted, includes the following statement: We believe public engagement in school

district governance is best served by electing local board members in non-partisan April elections, rather

than the November general elections. The underlying message in this statement reflects that local school

boards should notmake decisions based on a particular political partys point of view; rather, decisions

should be to reflect what is best for the local school district in a non-partisan manner.

An addition of school board members to the November ballot would add confusion to voters.

Voters often vote for a candidate based on party affiliation. Although school board elections may show

lower numbers of voters, those voters are more informed, and are more vested in their local schooldistricts. School board candidates are allowed to speak at individualized debates, to address the needs of

the districts in a non-partisan method. Adding school board members to a particular party may give the

notion that if a particular organization endorses said candidate, decisions made as a board member may

also sway to the benefit of participants of that organization. That is notthe intended role of a school

board member.


29/126

taking office. New elected school board members in July have several months to collect data necessary

for superintendent evaluations and prepare for teacher negotiations.

Bringing newly elected board members seven months into the schools fiscal year, and less than 6months into most academic year has the potential for poor decision making. I ask each of you to consider

the scenario of any job you have had. Would you rather have an evaluation from a boss that has known

you and your work record for several months, or one? Would you rather have someone make decisions

for your childs educational needs based on several months, or one?

Finally, although this bill does not change the method of election in local school boards, I am

concerned about a possible amendment that would require all local elections to be held on an at-large

basis to addressed concerned about ballot complexity of all elections are held at the same time. I am

opposed to all local elections being held on an at-large basis. Ever since the current system of unifiedschool districts was developed in the 1960s, the people of each district have been able to use various

systems of board member districts to allow different communities or areas to be assured of representation

on the board.

Although these districts must comply with the one person, one vote equality of population, the

current system helps ensure representation of different communities of interest. For example, USD 506

Labette County has representation that covers 500 square miles and includes K-12 buildings, our high

school and an at-large position. As a local school board member, this equality in representation allows

me to hear the representation of each member and make the best decisions for our entire district.The current system of having local school board elections in a non-partisan April election, with

representation from each community IS what is best for students, and best for education.

Thank you for your consideration.

School Board Elections


30/126

School Board Elections

Special Report

Kansas Association of School Boards

Jim Hays, Research Specialist

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Positions : Election971 1,262 972 1,242 950 1,262 981 1,249 964 1,237 959 1,230 957 1,247 984 1,237 962 1,218

CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS:Did not File 366 488 387 463 366 433 325 378 309 404 351 422 364 393 335 418 307 413

% 37.5% 37.3% 40.1% 37.5% 37.5% 34.7% 32.9% 30.4% 32.6% 32.8% 36.4% 34.5% 37.6% 31.5% 34.0% 33.8% 31.9% 33.9%

Defeated: Primary21 23 12 11 10 21 24 25 24 31 16 26 15 26 8 6 9 8

% 2.2% 1.8% 1.2% 0.9% 1.0% 1.7% 2.4% 2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 1.7% 2.1% 1.5% 2.1% 0.8% 0.5% 0.9% 0.7%

Defeated: General 83 156 110 120 95 153 122 167 110 151 129 154 107 167 95 118 75 115% 8.5% 11.9% 11.4% 9.7% 9.7% 12.2% 12.3% 13.4% 11.6% 12.2% 13.4% 12.6% 11.0% 13.4% 9.7% 9.5% 7.8% 9.4%

Re-elected 505 640 456 641 505 642 518 672 505 647 469 621 483 661 546 695 571 682% 51.8% 49.0% 47.3% 51.9% 51.8% 51.4% 52.4% 54.1% 53.2% 52.5% 48.6% 50.8% 49.9% 53.0% 55.5% 56.2% 59.4% 56.0%

TOTAL-Current 975 1,307 965 1,235 976 1,249 989 1,242 948 1,223 965 1,223 969 1,247 984 1,237 962 1,218

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1

ELECTION WINNERSNew Board

Members 466 626 515 602 457 620 463 577 459 590 490 609 474 586 438 542 391 536% 48.0% 49.4% 53.0% 48.4% 47.5% 49.1% 47.2% 46.2% 47.6% 47.7% 51.1% 49.5% 49.5% 47.0% 44.5% 43.8% 40.6% 44.0%

Current Board

Members 505 640 456 641 505 642 518 672 505 647 469 621 483 661 546 695 571 682% 52.0% 50.6% 47.0% 51.6% 52.5% 50.9% 52.8% 53.8% 52.4% 52.3% 48.9% 50.5% 50.5% 53.0% 55.5% 56.2% 59.4% 56.0%

TOTAL-Winners 971 1,266 971 1,243 962 1,262 981 1,249 964 1,237 959 1,230 957 1,247 984 1,237 962 1,218

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1

Of those who

filed, % of

incumbents re-

elected 83.5% 82.7% 78.9% 83.0% 82.8% 78.7% 78.0% 77.8% 79.0% 79.0% 76.4% 77.5% 79.8% 77.4% 84.1% 84.9% 87.2% 84.7%

Prepared by KASB 2/1/2013


31/126


32/126

Report on School Board Election Systems

Kansas Association of School Boards

Jim Hays, Research Specialist

February 7, 2013

METHOD OF ELECTION: Four options are available in K.S.A. 72-8009.

(1) Two-member districts, with three board members in each district, and one board member at

large;

(2) Three-member districts, with two board members in each district and one at-large;

(3) Six-member districts with one board member in each district and one at-large; or

(4) All board members elected at-large.

With any METHOD OF ELECTION, there are also options for which VOTING PLAN a school

board may use: K.S.A. 72-8003.

Voting Plan A which allows all voters to vote for all candidates in both the general and primary

election.

Voting Plan B which allows all voters to vote for all positions in the general election, but allows

voters to vote only for candidates in their member district in primary elections.

Voting Plan C which allows voters to vote for only candidates in their member district in both

the general and primary elections.

Summary of Current Use:

Method of Election USDs

Voting

Plan

A B C


33/126

25

55

90

115

0

20

4060

80

100

120

140

2 member

districts 1

at-large

Six member

districts 1

at-large

3 member

districts 1

at-large

All board

members

elected at-

large

Method of Election: Kansas USDs

Do certain size districts use a particular Method of Election?

Enrollment Category USD

2

member

districts

1 at-

large

3

member

districts

1 at-

large

All

board

members

elected

at-large

Six

member

districts

1 at-

large

< 1,725 233 24 76 85 48

1,725 - 10,000 46 1 12 29 4> 10,000 6 2 1 3

285


34/126

Do Certain Areas of Kansas use a particular Method of Election?

KASB Region USD

2

member

districts1 at-

large

3

member

districts1 at-

large

All

board

memberselected

at-large

Six

member

districts1 at-

large

1 29 2 13 10 4

2 33 4 15 4 10

3 32 2 9 14 7

4 27 3 10 3 115 30 1 10 14 5

6 31 1 12 15 3

7 26 4 11 7 4

8 25 4 5 10 6

9 25 3 1 19 2

10 27 1 4 19 3

285

KASB Regions


35/126

Do certain size districts use a particular voting plan?

Voting Plan

Enrollment Category USD A B C

< 1,725 233 104 74 55

1,725 - 10,000 46 31 11 4

> 10,000 6 1 4 1

285


36/126

Do certain areas of Kansas use a particular voting plan?

Voting Plan

Region USDs A B C

1 29 12 12 5

2 33 9 15 93 32 15 12 5

4 27 5 12 10

5 30 15 10 5

6 31 17 11 3

7 26 11 5 10

8 25 11 6 8

9 25 22 1 210 27 19 5 3

285

Detailed Listing of all Unified School Districts in Kansas:

USD USD Name Method of Election Voting Plan

101 Erie-Galesburg 3 member districts 1 at-large B

102 Cimarron-Ensign All board members elected at-large A

103 Cheylin All board members elected at-large A

105 Rawlins County Six member districts 1 at-large A

106 Western Plains 2 member districts 1 at-large C

107 Rock Hills 2 member districts 1 at-large C

108 hi C Si b di t i t 1 t l C


37/126


115 Nemaha Central Six member districts 1 at-large C

200 Greeley County All board members elected at-large A202 Turner-Kansas City All board members elected at-large A

203 Piper-Kansas City All board members elected at-large A

204 Bonner Springs All board members elected at-large A

205 Bluestem All board members elected at-large A

206 Remington-Whitewater All board members elected at-large A

207 Ft. Leavenworth

208 WaKeeney All board members elected at-large A209 Moscow All board members elected at-large A

210 Hugoton All board members elected at-large A

211 Norton Community 2 member districts 1 at-large A

212 Northern Valley 2 member districts 1 at-large C

214 Ulysses Six member districts 1 at-large B

215 Lakin All board members elected at-large A

216 Deerfield All board members elected at-large A217 Rolla Six member districts 1 at-large C

218 Elkhart All board members elected at-large A

219 Minneola All board members elected at-large A

220 Ashland All board members elected at-large A

223 Barnes Six member districts 1 at-large C

224 Clifton-Clyde Six member districts 1 at-large C

225 Fowler All board members elected at-large A226 Meade All board members elected at-large A

227 Hodgeman County All board members elected at-large A

229 Blue Valley Six member districts 1 at-large B

230 Spring Hill 3 member districts 1 at-large B

231 Gardner-Edgerton 3 member districts 1 at-large B

232 De Soto Six member districts 1 at-large B

233 Olathe 3 member districts 1 at-large B

234 Fort Scott Six member districts 1 at-large A

235 Uniontown Six member districts 1 at-large B

237 Smith Center 3 member districts 1 at-large B

239 North Ottawa County 3 member districts 1 at-large A


38/126


246 Northeast Six member districts 1 at-large B

247 Cherokee Six member districts 1 at-large B248 Girard 3 member districts 1 at-large B

249 Frontenac All board members elected at-large A

250 Pittsburg All board members elected at-large A

251 North Lyon County 3 member districts 1 at-large C

252 Southern Lyon County 2 member districts 1 at-large B

253 Emporia All board members elected at-large A

254 Barber County North Six member districts 1 at-large C255 South Barber 2 member districts 1 at-large C

256 Marmaton Valley Six member districts 1 at-large C

257 Iola Six member districts 1 at-large C

258 Humboldt All board members elected at-large A

259 Wichita Six member districts 1 at-large B

260 Derby All board members elected at-large A

261 Haysville All board members elected at-large A262 Valley Center All board members elected at-large A

263 Mulvane 3 member districts 1 at-large B

264 Clearwater All board members elected at-large A

265 Goddard All board members elected at-large A

266 Maize 3 member districts 1 at-large B

267 Renwick 3 member districts 1 at-large B

268 Cheney All board members elected at-large A269 Palco Six member districts 1 at-large C

270 Plainville All board members elected at-large A

271 Stockton All board members elected at-large A

272 Waconda 3 member districts 1 at-large B

273 Beloit Six member districts 1 at-large B

274 Oakley All board members elected at-large A

275 Triplains All board members elected at-large A281 Graham County All board members elected at-large A

282 West Elk 2 member districts 1 at-large C

283 Elk Valley All board members elected at-large A

284 Chase County 3 member districts 1 at-large C


39/126


291 Grinnell All board members elected at-large A

292 Wheatland All board members elected at-large A293 Quinter Six member districts 1 at-large C

294 Oberlin All board members elected at-large A

297 St. Francis 3 member districts 1 at-large A

298 Lincoln 2 member districts 1 at-large C

299 Sylvan Grove 3 member districts 1 at-large A

300 Comanche County 3 member districts 1 at-large B

303 Ness City All board members elected at-large A305 Salina All board members elected at-large A

306 Southeast Of Saline 3 member districts 1 at-large B

307 Ell-Saline 3 member districts 1 at-large C

308 Hutchinson All board members elected at-large A

309 Nickerson All board members elected at-large A

310 Fairfield All board members elected at-large A

311 Pretty Prairie 3 member districts 1 at-large C312 Haven Six member districts 1 at-large B

313 Buhler 3 member districts 1 at-large B

314 Brewster All board members elected at-large A

315 Colby All board members elected at-large A

316 Golden Plains All board members elected at-large A

320 Wamego Six member districts 1 at-large C

321 Kaw Valley 3 member districts 1 at-large B322 Onaga-Havensville-Wheaton Six member districts 1 at-large C

323 Rock Creek Six member districts 1 at-large C

325 Phillipsburg 3 member districts 1 at-large C

326 Logan Six member districts 1 at-large C

327 Ellsworth 3 member districts 1 at-large A

329 Mill Creek Valley Six member districts 1 at-large C

330 Mission Valley 3 member districts 1 at-large B331 Kingman - Norwich Six member districts 1 at-large C

332 Cunningham Six member districts 1 at-large C

333 Concordia 3 member districts 1 at-large B

334 Southern Cloud 2 member districts 1 at-large B


40/126


341 Oskaloosa 3 member districts 1 at-large A

342 McLouth 3 member districts 1 at-large B343 Perry 3 member districts 1 at-large B

344 Pleasanton All board members elected at-large A

345 Seaman 2 member districts 1 at-large C

346 Jayhawk Six member districts 1 at-large C

347 Kinsley-Offerle All board members elected at-large A

348 Baldwin City Six member districts 1 at-large C

349 Stafford All board members elected at-large A350 St. John-Hudson 3 member districts 1 at-large B

351 Macksville 2 member districts 1 at-large A

352 Goodland All board members elected at-large A

353 Wellington 3 member districts 1 at-large C

355 Ellinwood All board members elected at-large A

356 Conway Springs 3 member districts 1 at-large B

357 Belle Plaine 3 member districts 1 at-large A358 Oxford 3 member districts 1 at-large B

359 Argonia Six member districts 1 at-large B

360 Caldwell All board members elected at-large A

361 Anthony-Harper 3 member districts 1 at-large B

362 Prairie View Six member districts 1 at-large C

363 Holcomb 3 member districts 1 at-large B

364 Marysville 2 member districts 1 at-large B365 Garnett Six member districts 1 at-large C

366 Woodson 3 member districts 1 at-large B

367 Osawatomie 3 member districts 1 at-large A

368 Paola 3 member districts 1 at-large B

369 Burrton All board members elected at-large A

371 Montezuma All board members elected at-large A

372 Silver Lake All board members elected at-large A373 Newton All board members elected at-large A

374 Sublette All board members elected at-large A

375 Circle Six member districts 1 at-large C

376 Sterling All board members elected at-large A


41/126


383 Manhattan-Ogden All board members elected at-large A

384 Blue Valley-Randolph 3 member districts 1 at-large C385 Andover 3 member districts 1 at-large B

386 Madison-Virgil 3 member districts 1 at-large B

387 Altoona-Midway Six member districts 1 at-large B

388 Ellis All board members elected at-large A

389 Eureka Six member districts 1 at-large C

390 Hamilton Six member districts 1 at-large B

392 Osborne County 3 member districts 1 at-large C393 Solomon 3 member districts 1 at-large B

394 Rose Hill All board members elected at-large A

395 LaCrosse Six member districts 1 at-large C

396 Douglass All board members elected at-large A

397 Centre Six member districts 1 at-large C

398 Peabody-Burns All board members elected at-large A

399 Paradise All board members elected at-large A400 Smoky Valley Six member districts 1 at-large B

401 Chase-Raymond All board members elected at-large A

402 Augusta 3 member districts 1 at-large C

403 Otis-Bison 3 member districts 1 at-large B

404 Riverton 3 member districts 1 at-large B

405 Lyons All board members elected at-large A

407 Russell County All board members elected at-large A408 Marion-Florence 3 member districts 1 at-large B

409 Atchison All board members elected at-large A

410 Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh 3 member districts 1 at-large C

411 Goessel Six member districts 1 at-large B

412 Hoxie Community All board members elected at-large A

413 Chanute All board members elected at-large A

415 Hiawatha 3 member districts 1 at-large B416 Louisburg Six member districts 1 at-large C

417 Morris County 2 member districts 1 at-large B

418 McPherson All board members elected at-large A

419 Canton-Galva 3 member districts 1 at-large B


42/126


429 Troy All board members elected at-large A

430 South Brown County Six member districts 1 at-large C431 Hoisington 3 member districts 1 at-large B

432 Victoria All board members elected at-large A

434 Santa Fe Trail 3 member districts 1 at-large B

435 Abilene 3 member districts 1 at-large B

436 Caney Valley 2 member districts 1 at-large B

437 Auburn Washburn Six member districts 1 at-large B

438 Skyline All board members elected at-large A439 Sedgwick 3 member districts 1 at-large B

440 Halstead 3 member districts 1 at-large B

443 Dodge City All board members elected at-large A

444 Little River Six member districts 1 at-large A

445 Coffeyville All board members elected at-large A

446 Independence All board members elected at-large A

447 Cherryvale-Thayer All board members elected at-large A448 Inman All board members elected at-large A

449 Easton 3 member districts 1 at-large B

450 Shawnee Heights 3 member districts 1 at-large B

452 Stanton County 3 member districts 1 at-large B

453 Leavenworth All board members elected at-large A

454 Burlingame 3 member districts 1 at-large A

456 Marais des Cygnes Valley Six member districts 1 at-large A457 Garden City All board members elected at-large A

458 Basehor-Linwood 3 member districts 1 at-large A

459 Bucklin All board members elected at-large A

460 Hesston All board members elected at-large A

461 Neodesha All board members elected at-large A

462 Central 3 member districts 1 at-large B

463 Udall 2 member districts 1 at-large A464 Tonganoxie 3 member districts 1 at-large C

465 Winfield All board members elected at-large A

466 Scott County All board members elected at-large A

467 Leoti 2 member districts 1 at-large B


43/126


475 Geary County Schools All board members elected at-large A

476 Copeland All board members elected at-large A477 Ingalls All board members elected at-large A

479 Crest 3 member districts 1 at-large A

480 Liberal All board members elected at-large A

481 Rural Vista 2 member districts 1 at-large C

482 Dighton All board members elected at-large A

483 Kismet-Plains 2 member districts 1 at-large C

484 Fredonia 3 member districts 1 at-large C487 Herington All board members elected at-large A

489 Hays All board members elected at-large A

490 El Dorado All board members elected at-large A

491 Eudora All board members elected at-large A

492 Flinthills 3 member districts 1 at-large B

493 Columbus 3 member districts 1 at-large B

494 Syracuse Six member districts 1 at-large C495 Ft. Larned Six member districts 1 at-large C

496 Pawnee Heights 2 member districts 1 at-large C

497 Lawrence All board members elected at-large A

498 Valley Heights 3 member districts 1 at-large B

499 Galena All board members elected at-large A

500 Kansas City All board members elected at-large A

501 Topeka 3 member districts 1 at-large B502 Lewis Six member districts 1 at-large B

503 Parsons All board members elected at-large A

504 Oswego All board members elected at-large A

505 Chetopa-St. Paul 3 member districts 1 at-large B

506 Labette County 3 member districts 1 at-large B

507 Satanta 3 member districts 1 at-large B

508 Baxter Springs All board members elected at-large A509 South Haven All board members elected at-large A

511 Attica All board members elected at-large A

512 Shawnee Mission Six member districts 1 at-large C


44/126


45/126

To: Senate Committee on Ethics, Elections, and Local GovernmentFrom: Erich Campbell, City Commissioner for the City of Holton

Date: March 13, 2013

Re: Opposition to SB 211

My name is LTC Erich Campbell and I am currently serving as a City Commissioner for Holton Kansas.

I am a 27 years Army Veteran and I am currently still on active assigned as the Senior Regular ArmyAdvisor to the Adjutant General for the State of Kansas.

I have been in the state of Kansas since 2007 and a resident of Holton since 2009. My wife and I selected

Kansas as our retirement home. We have taken to our adopted state with great enthusiasm and want tobecome model residents of our new home. As a citizen of Holton I have been active in many of itcommunity organizations and activities such as Cub Scout Den Leader, Church President, VFW and the

County Historical Society. Recently I became involved in City Government as a city commissioner. I amcurrently running for reelection this April for my current position unopposed.

As a member of the Armed Forces I am allowed to run for city elections only because they are nonpartisan elections. This is a military regulation and also Federal law. If this bill passes in its current form,all candidates will be required to become partisan. The immediate effect of this change will result in not

only me but thousands of other active duty, Active Kansas National Guardsmen, and Active Reservist tobe excluded as candidates for all future local elections.

It is my belief that the leadership skills, management skills and discipline that the members of the militaryhave acquired can be extremely beneficial to the communities we live in. I am not saying that there will

be a large or even a moderate amount of active duty servicemen or women that will want to run for city

elections and I may even be an a nominally but at least we currently have the option to run for city office.I have been deployed 6 times since 911. I have three bronze stars, a purple hearts and a valorous unit

award. I have not only earned yours and mine right to vote but I also earned my right to run for cityelection. We want to serve and make our communities a better place with the skills that we have learnand been taught through our military experiences. Please let those of us that are currently serving our

nation to continue to serve our communities. Please remove the partisan requirement from this bill.

Erich G. Campbell525 New York Ave

Holton, KS 66436(785) [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


46/126

TESTIMONY

City of Wichita


47/126

________________________________________________________________________________

Senate Ethics, Elections and Local Government CommitteeHearing on SB211 Local Elections

Thursday, March 14, 2013Dale Goter, Government Relations Manager, City of Wichita

Chairman Pyle and members of the committee:

The City of Wichita opposes any state legislative effort to mandate the timing and partisanship oflocal elections.

The format for local elections is best left to the local officials who are closest to the electorate. The

option of scheduling elections for either fall or spring in even or odd numbered years is currentlywithin the authority of a local governing body. If the local electorate was clamoring for such achange, local elected officials would be the first to hear about it, and would respond accordingly.

No such public outcry has been registered, and the City of Wichita is comfortable with the currentformat of non-partisan elections conducted in the spring of odd-numbered years.

It is important to remember that Kansas local government is considered a national model for itsemphasis on good government and the absence of partisan influence on the local level. Theintroduction of partisan politics into local government issues will only polarize local elected officialsand create artificial limits on policy debates.

The everyday demands of local government,, providing basic services such as public safety andtransportation, do not lend themselves to partisan politics. As Wichita City Council Member PeteMeitzner noted, There is no Republican or Democratic way to fix a pothole.

It also is worth noting that our county election office has struggled to meet the obligations of thecurrent fall election schedule. Adding a host of other local elections to the ballot would further strainthe limited capabilities of the Sedgwick County Election Office.

Dale Goter

Government Relations Manager

City of Wichita455 N Main, Wichita, KS. 67202Wichita Phone: 316.352.4876

[email protected]


48/126

SenateEducationCommittee

Sen.Pyle,Chair

S.B.211Movingmunicipalelections

Presented by Diane Gjerstad

Wichita Public SchoolsFebruary 21, 2013

Mr.ChairmanandMembersoftheCommittee:

WeriseinoppositiontoHB2271whichwouldmoveSchoolBoardelectionsfromthecurrentspringelectiontojoincountlesspositionsandissuesontheNovembergeneralelectionand

wouldfurthermakeSchoolBoardelectionspartisan.

Thecurrentsystemofnon-partisanelectedleadershiphasservedKansasschooldistricts

well.Schoolissuesarebestaddressedinanon-partisanfashiontoaddressacommunitysgoals.

CurrentlyBoardMemberstakeofficeinJulywhichcoincideswithanewschoolyear,new

teachercontracts,newprograms,andchangesinprogramsforanewschoolyear.Boardmembersstartthenewschoolyearalongwithstudentsandstaff.

MovingtheelectiontoNovemberandtakingofficeinJanuarywouldputnewBoard

membersinthemidstofcontractnegotiationswithinadequatetimetobecomeacquaintedwith

practicesandconcernsfacingthedistrict.Districtsbeginthenegotiationsprocessandthebudget

processinJanuary.ThisbillwouldputnewBoardmembersinthedifficultroleofevaluating

budgetswithlittletimetobecomeacquaintedwiththeadistrictsprioritiesandbusinesspractices.

WorkingintandemwiththecommunityandtheLeagueofWomenVoters,wespentfour

yearsstudyingandrefiningourdistrictelectionprocess.Theresultwascommunityagreementto

movetodistrictelectionsapprovedbyvotersinNovember1994.Districtelectionsensurethe

Boardhasbroadbasedgeographicalrepresentation.Wichitaschoolboarddistrictshavebeen

reapportionedtwicetocomplywithchangesinpopulationandgrowth.Thispastsummerthe

Testimony


49/126

TestimonyUnified Government Public Relations

701 N. 7th Street, Room 620Kansas City, Kansas 66101

Mike Taylor, Public Relations Director913.573.5565 [email protected]_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Local ElectionsSB 211

Delivered to:Senate Ethics, Elections and Local Government Committee

The Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City opposes SB 211 because it is a bad ideawhich will complicate the elections process; hurt candidates running in local elections; and is yetanother big government, big brother intrusion into local affairs.

City elections are non-partisan for good reason. The community issues which become the focus of a

Mayor or City Council race are not about Republican or Democrat talking points. They are aboutissues which affect each and every city in a very local way. Politicizing those elections with nationaland state partisan political topics will hurt the development and administration of public policy whichaddresses the most pressing community needs.

The measure will hurt local candidates because they will be lost in the long ballots which containraces for President, Congress, Governor and Legislature. Few will pay attention to a local city racewith all of those bigger races on the ballot. That hurts the local community because issues affectingthe city will not be discussed and debated they way they are now with Spring elections. Also, raisingmoney will be very difficult for Mayoral and City Council candidates when people are being tapped togive campaign contributions to all of those other offices. Unless of course the State Republican andDemocrat parties step-in and give contributions. And if that happens, it further politicizes the local,community based campaigns.

This proposal will not save money, in fact, in Wyandotte County it will increase the costs of running

elections. And the State Budget Director estimates it will cause $566,000 in additional costs forKansas counties in 2014.

Finally, once again the Kansas Legislature is looking to meddle in the business of local government.There has been no outcry for moving City and School elections from Spring to Fall except from

ti liti l ti i t h d t i f th i th liti l d f th i ti l


50/126

To: Senate Ethics, Elections & Local Government CommitteeFrom: Kim Winn, Deputy DirectorDate: February 21, 2013Re: Opposition to SB 211

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today in opposition to SB 211. This legislationwould alter elections for all 626 incorporated cities in Kansas. Our membership has

expressed strong opposition to the changes proposed in this bill and we offer thefollowing key concerns.

Mandated Partisanship. City elections in Kansas are non-partisan, and with very fewexceptions, always have been. SB 211 would mandate partisan elections for all cities.More than any other aspect of this proposed legislation, city officials have expressedconcern about this portion of the bill. Unlike the overarching philosophies thatpermeate national and state elections, local elections turn on issues that are truly local

in nature. In one community, the key issue in a city election might be the need to repairstreets and fix potholes. In the next community over, the key issue might be nuisanceabatement or picking up stray dogs.

Each city has a unique character and unique issues that come to the forefront in localelections. These issues do not fit into the ideology of the existing political parties.There is no Republican or Democratic way to fix a pothole. Cities are serving citizens atthe most practical level and we oppose the State mandating partisanship on cities.

Fall Elections. SB 211 would move all local elections to fall of even-numbered years.This would mean that city elections would be held at the same time as gubernatorial orpresidential elections, along with a variety of state officials, judicial retentions, countyelections, etc. The ballot fatigue alone is reason enough not to make this change.However, even more concerning is the fact that local issues will most certainly be lost inthe myriad of state and federal issues that surround the fall elections. Right now,because local elections are the only elections happening in the spring, localnewspapers and other media outlets are covering the issues that are important in localcommunities. While greater numbers might vote in fall elections in even-numberedyears, there is a high likelihood that they would be less well-informed about localissues.


51/126

Procedural Concerns. This bill would impact the elections for all 3,812 elected cityofficials in Kansas and the drafting of the bill raises some serious procedural concerns.

First, there are internal inconsistencies in the bill including whether terms of office willbe staggered and whether the terms will be two or four years. New section 1 seems tosuggest everyone will be reelected in 2014 and there will be no stagger. New section 2seems to leave the terms of office up to the governing body to establish by ordinance.Further, section 36 seems to mandate both a stagger and a four-year term.

Adding city, school, and other jurisdictional boundaries to already confusing votingprecincts would only increase the opportunity for voters to go to the wrong polling place.

Further, it would increase the likelihood of ballot errors with voters receiving the wrongballots (as we saw in the most recent election). Adding local elections to the alreadyconfusing and difficult to administer election process would add an undue burden oncounty election officials and polling staff.

New section 1 seems to suggest that persons who are currently holding office andthose who may be elected in April would be removed from office by this legislation.This portion of the bill presumes that all 3,812 city elected positions would be up forelection in the fall of 2014 (including those who are being elected in the spring of thisyear, some of whom may have terms that run through 2017).

Voter Turnout. Lack of voter turnout is often cited as the reason for this legislation.Voter turnout has been declining in presidential elections since 1960. And, while it isimportant that individuals exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, voterturnout is not the only indicator of the civic health of a community. Some individuals

may be relatively content and may choose not to vote. Others may only be interested inthe larger constitutional issues raised at the state and federal level.

I would posit that if voter turnout numbers are the primary reason for this change, thereare better ways to engage the citizenry than to alter the election date. Perhaps weshould be working together to find ways to enhance civic education so that ourstudents, and all Kansans, understand the value of government at all levels and theimportance of their participation. Through such a dialogue, we certainly could find

solutions which would affect the overall participation of our citizens in governmentgenerally.

I would be happy to stand for questions at the appropriate time.


52/126


53/126


54/126


55/126


56/126


57/126


58/126


59/126


60/126


61/126


62/126


63/126


64/126


65/126


66/126


67/126


68/126


69/126


70/126

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION OF SB 211 Municipalities; elections;partisan; fall, even-numbered years

To: Honorable Chairman Dennis PyleMembers of the Senate Standing Committee on Ethics, Electionsand Local Government

From: Leslee Rivarola, Assistant City AdministratorCity of Lenexa(913) [email protected]

Date: February 20, 2013

Honorable Chair and Members of the Senate Standing Committee on Ethics,Elections and Local Government, the City of Lenexa thanks you for theopportunity to provide testimony opposing SB 211.

We believe local elections being moved to the fall of even numbered years willcloud the issues occurring at the local level. Currently, voters who turn out forthe spring election are informed and wish to cast their ballots for candidates orissues important to them. Moving local elections to the fall of even years makeslocal governments vulnerable to being lost in the shuffle of State and Federalelections.

The issue of partisan based elections is of particular concern. In Lenexa, ourGoverning Body makes decisions not based on political party lines, but based onthe expectations of our residential and business communities. If our GoverningBody is not setting policy and spending dollars according to community priorities,our citizens can and will cast their vote to change the membership of the

In a time where demands for service are increasing, in Lenexa, we are alwayslooking for ways to build partnerships and find the delicate balance between thequality of service delivery and willingness to pay for services Partisan elections


71/126

quality of service delivery and willingness to pay for services. Partisan elections

look to create divisiveness in our community in a time where collaboration isessential.

The Sandstone Group, LLCR.J. Wilson, President and Lobbyist


72/126

T: 913-209-3936

[email protected]

Testimony on behalf of the Kansas County Clerks and

Election Officials Association in opposition to SB 211

Chairman Pyle and Members of the Senate Ethics, Elections and Local GovernmentCommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today in opposition to SenateBill 211. I am R.J. Wilson, a former member of the Kansas House ofRepresentatives and a Certified County Clerk, here today representing the 109member Kansas County Clerks and Election Officials Association.

A majority of the 105 County Clerks, serving in their capacity as each countysChief Election Officer, and the four Election Commissioners, agreed last year to aresolution opposing the movement of the City/School Election currently held inthe late Winter and early Spring of each year.

In your packet of information for this hearing you will find written testimony inopposition to SB 211 from Donald Pyle, the Crawford County Clerk and chairmanof the Elections Committee for KCCEOA; Sherrie Riebel, the Allen County Clerk;

Karen Defore, the Cowley County Clerk and Bruce Newby, the WyandotteCounty Election Commissioner. All four election officials apologize for theirinability to be in attendance today. As you know, tomorrow is city/school PrimaryElection Day across Kansas and each of the C.E.O.s who testified in the HouseElections Committee are busy preparing for tomorrows election.

In their absence, I would like to point each of you in the direction ofCommissioner Newbys testimony where he lists 20 solid reasons why the

Spring elections should not be moved to the Fall. Additionally, on the secondpage of Mr. Pyles testimony you will find another list of reasons with detailedexplanations as to why the elections should remain at the same time they occurtoday.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


73/126


74/126

February 21, 2012

Honorable Kansas State Senator Dennis PyleChairman, Senate Ethics, Elections and Local Government Committee

and Distinguished Members of the Committee

Re: Senate Bill 211, Concerning City & School Elections

Chairman Pyle and Distinguished Committee Members,

As Chairman of the Elections Legislation Committee for the Kansas County Clerks and Election Officials Association, Ithank you for your time in allowing me to testify on this bill. The KCCEOA last year adopted a resolution that opposes

moving the City and Schools Elections from the spring of even-numbered years to the fall of odd-numbered years. Wehave identified several issues that must be considered prior to making such a change.

By moving these elections to coincide with other federal, state and local elections we will have to print two ballots toinclude all the races. This will make it much easier for mistakes to be made at the polling place by both electionworkers and by voters. This also makes it more difficult to verify the number of ballots voted when performing audits.The number of races will make it more difficult for voters to be able to study issues when making their choices. Thereare other issues that need to be brought to a public election periodically and it is important to have one general electionper year to avoid the need for several special elections for sales tax, bonds or other issues. We also feel that holdingelections every two years will make it much harder to recruit and retain experienced poll workers. This will be anotherfactor that will cause election errors to increase.

The Kansas County Clerks and Election Officials work hard to make sure that Kansas Elections are administered in aprofessional manner. We oppose this bill because we feel that the resulting elections will be much harder to manageand there will be problems at the polls. We ask that you carefully consider these factors in making your decision on this

matter. Thank you for allowing me to testify and for allowing me to share the reasons that I do not support this change.

Sincerely,

Issues to Consider Before Moving Odd Year Elections to Even Years

Presented to the Senate Ethics, Elections and Local Government Committee


75/126

February 25, 2013

1. The length of ballots. Most Counties will not be able to place all theirraces on the front and back of one ballot. Counties that are required to have

ballots in other languages will have more problems with this than other

counties. Unless legislation is also passed that reduces the number of itemsthat need to be placed on ballots, most voters will receive two ballots. More

than one ballot will make it easier to have mistakes when handing ballots to

voters and there will be many voters that will not vote the second ballot due to a

lack of time or a lack of interest in the races.

Every page of a ballot is counted by the voting machine as a separate

ballot. The entry of multiple ballot pages into a voting machine makes

obtaining an accurate machine count of ballots cast a virtual impossibility. Whilelogically, it should be a simple multiple of the number of ballot pages, it has

been our experience that this is never the case. The extra pages get pocketed

or trashed and never make it to the voting machine (optical scan reader). Some

voters will choose to skip a second or third page of a ballot. They may or may

not turn it in. Many voters in a Presidential election year are only interested in

voting the Presidential race and leave the rest of the ballot(s) blank. A multi-

page ballot exacerbates the under-vote problem.

Voters are limited by law (KSA 25-2901) to no more than 5 minutes in a

voting booth. Lengthy ballots, and especially multi-page ballots, virtually

guarantee election day problems for voters who choose to read and vote every

race or question on a ballot. With a multi-page ballot, it will not be possible for

many voters to get through the ballot in the time allotted. Many of the waiting

lines in the November 2012 election were caused by the lengthy constitutional

question which took up the entire back of an 18-inch long ballot. An 18-inch

ballot is the longest ballot which can be read by an optical scan reader. As a

matter of practicality, lengthy ballots increase the likelihood of under-votes and

over-votes, as voter confusion is increased.

partisan ballots could also have the non-partisan races included on them. The

number of races and candidates could easily make it necessary to have two page

ballots for the primary. The party afliation rules also contribute to confusion at


76/126

p y p y

these elections.

An August Primary is a party election with rules for voting of ballots set

by the 2 major political parties. Non-partisan races or questions always require

a separate ballot to make available a ballot to any voters not afliated with one

of the two major parties. With party rules, there is already substantial confusion

about which voters get which ballot. Adding a non-partisan ballot further

complicates the confusion. The confusion is not limited to voters. Many

election workers already have difculty understanding the rules.

With the growing complexity of elections, fewer persons are willing to

volunteer or even be a paid volunteer to work an election. Most election

workers are paid less than minimum wage. There is too little time for adequate

training, which is also not adequately funded by most counties.

Voters will not understand why some races are non-partisan. It will also

be confusing to have many races that allow voters to vote for multiple

candidates(some school district and city contests) alongside the traditional

partisan elections that allow for only one choice. Combining partisan and non-

partisan races in the same election increases the dissatisfaction of partisan

voters who demand to know the party afliation of every candidate.

3. Necessity of other public elections. Many cities, school districts andother public entities also use the odd year elections as a vehicle to put sales tax

issues, bond issues and other issues that require an election to a public vote

without holding a separate election. These issues, which may still require an

election in the odd years, will still be paid for with public funds.

With elections scheduled in every calendar year, local jurisdictions have a

more regular opportunity to present issues to voters in conjunction with a

scheduled election. The elimination of odd-year scheduled elections virtually

guarantees an increase in the number of special elections which will become

necessary.

4. Ballot printing problems. With the additional amount of printing for


77/126

ballots and the additional races and candidates that will need to be included inthe programming of ballots, the turnaround for ballots will be longer and it will

be even more difcult to meet UOCAVA deadlines.

Pushing all elections to even-numbered years merely shifts all of the

costs associated with ballot design, programming and printing into one year

rather than being able to spread the cost over two years.

Lead times for ballot printing will increase making it considerably moredifcult to have printed ballots available prior to the 45-days-prior ballot

mailing deadline for UOCAVA voters.

In some years, the filing deadlines and election schedules already make it

impossible to meet the federal (UOCAVA) voter ballot deadline or to even have a

candidate list from which to design a ballot. With redistricting every 10 years,

this virtually guarantees we will have a situation like we had in 2012 where

redistricting decisions were made and the necessary changes made to the

aected databases that took us past the deadline. Federal UOCAVA voters then

get a ballot under construction rather than a final ballot. This creates an unfair

voting situation for UOCAVA voters.

5. Additional races and issues. The addition of many more candidates andraces into an election cycle will make it even more difcult to sort out all theissues and candidates. Scheduling for forums and debates will become more

cluttered. The amount of yard signs will be massive. With additional races will

also come additional write in votes which will require additional write in boards

and more hours of work.

The additional races and candidates means that state and federal ofce

candidates will be filing with the Secretary of State while simultaneously, largenumbers of candidates are filing with their county election ofcer for local

ofces. These local filings, appointments of campaign treasurers, the filing of

Statements of Substantial Interest and other campaign finance issues will occur

packets. This increases the likelihood that some packets will be incomplete or

will be missing the most current information.


78/126

6. Cost Savings. We may save some money in the odd numbered years, but inthe even numbered years we will spend a lot more than we are currently

spending because we will have more printing and ballot costs and probably

some other additional costs. This will cause our budgets for elections to

fluctuate even more from one year to the next and make that harder to manage.

This change will primarily shift expenses from one year to the nextinstead of actually saving money. If anything, the complexities of the resulting

elections will operate to radically increase the net cost. In fact, the costs of

conducting elections continue to increase to keep up with legislative changes,

paying election workers, and the major costs which will be associated with

training workers who are only exposed to election requirements just every 2

years. Even with elections annually, there is already a significant decay of

election knowledge from year to year which will be exacerbated by electionworker recruiting and retention issues.

Consistent annual elections help county election ofcers to maintain

some degree of continuity from election to election. Making the gap two years,

virtually assures that each election year we will be starting from scratch to

recruit and train election workers. It will be very difcult to maintain any sort of

continuity from election to election when the time between elections is so great.

The proposal to push all elections to even-numbered years, ignores the

prerogatives of some local jurisdictions according to their charter. For example,

the rules established that govern the conduct of the number of candidates

necessary before there is a nonpartisan primary does not apply to a local

government organized under a charter which says otherwise.

7. Budget Considerations. The actual cost-savings realized by shiftingelections to even-numbered years is difcult to calculate. If anything, it will

become more difcult to make sure elections are adequately funded. This puts

planning cycle just how many special elections will be done. There may be none

or there could be many.

Having a minimum of two elections scheduled in every calendar year


79/126

Having a minimum of two elections scheduled in every calendar year

facilitates good budget planning because costs are fairly balanced in each year.

Even though odd-numbered year election costs may be somewhat smaller than

even-numbered year elections, a consistent budget gives county election

ofcers the opportunity to focus on equipment maintenance and modernization

or other issues during odd-numbered years.

Karen D. Defore Amy ScottCowley County Clerk Deputy [email protected] [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


80/126

311 E. 9th

Winfield KS 67156(620)221-5400 (Winfield)

(620)441-4500 (Arkansas City)Fax (620)221-5498

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition of Senate Bill 211, regarding moving thecurrent spring elections to August and November of even number years.

As Cowley County Clerk I also serve as the Election Ofcer with a staof four including myself.

Cowley County population is 36,311. School district boundaries do not follow traditional precinctlines and often times cross County borders. Candidate information has to be passed on to othercounties for placement on that countys ballot.Anytime there is exchange of information along with the additional busyness of the PresidentialElection cycle the possibility that a candidate name will be misspelled or worse completely left othe ballot increases. Not only do school district elections create complexities due to crossingcounty boundaries they also create a substantial number of additional precincts. With eachadditional precinct follows increased costs. The additional races will also increase the length of the

ballot which will cause each paper ballot to continue on to a second page increasing the complexityof the election for the voter and also increasing costs.

Increasing voter turnout is something Election Ofcers statewide are concerned with and wecontinually try to think of ways to generate more interest in elections. The complexities that arecaused by combining the City/School Election to even number years will create significant costincreases that will not be oset by the cost saving of eliminating the spring elections. If they weremoved to odd years in the fall these complexities would not occur any dierently than theycurrently happen in the spring.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Karen D. DeforeCo le Co nt Clerk/Election Ofcer

ALLEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE

Sherrie L. Riebel 1 N. Washington 620-365-1407

COUNTY CLERK Iola, KS 66749 Fax: 365-1441


81/126

Email:[email protected]

To: Senate Committee on Ethics, Elections and Local Government

Re: Testimony on Senate Bill 211

From: Sherrie L. Riebel, Allen County Clerk

Honorable Chair and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 211.

In November of 2010, Allen County had to use a 17 ballot to get US Senator, US Representative,

Governor/Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer, Commissioner ofInsurance, State Representative, State Board of Education, County Commissioner, two special

questions, two constitutional questions, four Supreme Court Justices, seven Court of Appeals

Judges, one District Judge, and one Magistrate Judge on one ballot, front and back. Normally our

ballot in Allen County is 14 long, but I went to the longer ballot to allow voters to be able to read

the font and to keep board workers from getting confused on handing out two ballots.

Every spring in odd-years Allen County has a community college, city councils, USD, andextension district election. The front of the ballot is filled with College, City, USD, and Extension

candidates and then sometimes a special question which ends up on the back of the ballot. If we

were to have City/School Elections in the fall with Federal, State and Local elections, we would be

forced to have two ballots if not more. Allen County only has 21 precincts, which is a very small

county compared to the larger counties.

This is just the top reason why I would prefer not changing spring elections to the fall of even-

years. This bill would cause a chain reaction and add more confusion than we can predict affecting

cities, schools, colleges and county voters.

I urge the committee to report Senate Bill 211 as unfavorable Thank you for your consideration

To: Senate Committee on Ethics, Elections and Local Government

From: Nathan Eberline Associate Legislative Director & Legal Counsel

Date: February 25, 2013
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


82/126

Re: Senate Bill 211 (change time and nature of local elections)

Thank you for the opportunity to oppose Senate Bill 211, which would change local elections to

November. Not only are there a number of structural challenges to this proposal, but the potential

change neglects the history and sound policy reasons behind our current system. Across the United

States, around 80% of local elections take place on days other than national Election Day.1

There are

many beneficial reasons for this, and the Kansas Association of Counties advocates that Kansas maintain

its current election structure.

When KAC adopted the stance to maintain the current election structure, it worked with the Kansas

County Clerks Association to identify the most substantial structural problems. The Clerks Association is

similarly opposing SB 211, and KAC is consequently focusing on a few key areas of shared concern:

1. Unwieldy Ballot Lengtha. Current ballot machines count each page as a separate ballot. This increases the

likelihood of error when tallying ballots because most counties will be unable to place

every race on the front and back of a single ballot. Further, adding local elections would

create a substantial amount of information for each voter to remember and consider for

each election. The issues are too important at each level of government to risk voters

missing elections and ballot initiatives.

2. Separation of Local Ballot Issues from Local Electionsa. Counties, cities, school districts, and other public entities use the spring election to

address issues like charter ordinances, sales-tax votes, bond issuances, and other issues

that are largely of a local nature. It is important that voters make the connection

between local officials and the local policy changes. By keeping elections in the spring, itallows Kansans to keep individuals accountable when they initiate changes that affect

local communities. If SB 211 moves forward, these elections will still take place at added

cost to locals and the state. Not only would this lead to needless waste of local funds,

3. Increased Elections Expensea. Some advocates of changing the timeframe for elections have mentioned the potential

cost savings. But it seems unlikely savings will actually occur. The counties maintain that


83/126

this will be cost-neutral at best with a real prospect of rising costs by moving elections

to the fall. As noted, there will still occasionally be a need for special elections to

address issues that spring elections currently addressthis will add cost. Tight deadlines

in the new fall elections will make ballot printing a rushed requirement, which adds

expense. The local filings, appointment of campaign treasurers, filing of Statements of

Substantial Interest, and other campaign issues will tack-on to the Secretary of States

current duties for state and federal electionsagain adding to the workload and

potential expense. The County Clerks Association also pointed out the current efficiency

of elections workers maintaining continuity from election to election. If this changes to

the more infrequent election approach, the result will also add to the cost of running

elections. These considerations pose a substantial risk of increasing the cost of running

local elections, whereas the current system allows for thoughtful budget planning with

balanced costs from year to year.

Finally, one concern that often joins the conversation to move elections is low voter turn-out. Though it

is troubling that so few Kansans turn-out for elections, it is often the case that those with a vested

interest in the election are most prone to participate.2

Though we want high participation, we do not

want it at the expenseliterally and figurativelyof changing the election dates. If self-interest drives

electoral participation, then it is ideal to have the engaged citizen address local issues that most affect

them. It is too important to sweep the vital local issues into the chaos of state and local elections.

Please take these issues and those expressed by the Kansas County Clerks Association when considering

SB 211. KAC asks that you oppose the bill and maintain the system that has served Kansas so well for

many years.

Karen D. Defore Amy ScottCowley County Clerk Deputy [email protected] [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


84/126

311 E. 9th

Winfield KS 67156(620)221-5400 (Winfield)

(620)441-4500 (Arkansas City)Fax (620)221-5498

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition of Senate Bill 211, regarding moving thecurrent spring elections to August and November of even number years.

As Cowley County Clerk I also serve as the Election Ofcer with a staof four including myself.

Cowley County population is 36,311. School district boundaries do not follow traditional precinctlines and often times cross County borders. Candidate information has to be passed on to othercounties for placement on that countys ballot.Anytime there is exchange of information along with the additional busyness of the PresidentialElection cycle the possibility that a candidate name will be misspelled or worse completely left othe ballot increases. Not only do school district elections create complexities due to crossingcounty boundaries they also create a substantial number of additional precincts. With eachadditional precinct follows increased costs. The additional races will also increase the length of theballot which will cause each paper ballot to continue on to a second page increasing the complexityof the election for the voter and also increasing costs.

Increasing voter turnout is something Election Ofcers statewide are concerned with and wecontinually try to think of ways to generate more interest in elections. The complexities that arecaused by combining the City/School Election to even number years will create significant costincreases that will not be oset by the cost saving of eliminating the spring elections. If they weremoved to odd years in the fall these complexities would not occur any dierently than theycurrently happen in the spring.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Karen D. DeforeCo le Co nt Clerk/Election Ofcer


85/126


86/126


87/126


88/126

MEMORANDUM

TO: Senate Ethics, Elections, and Local Government CommitteeFROM: Sandy Jacquot

611 Jones St


89/126

611 Jones St.Lecompton, KS 66050

DATE: February 20, 2013RE: SB 211

Thank you allowing me to submit written testimony in opposition to SB 211, a bill thatwould purportedly move city elections to the fall in even numbered years, create four year terms

and make municipal elections partisan. I will focus on those issues, although the bill contains

more provisions. In short, the bill reflects a lack of knowledge of how city government actually

works, particularly in small cities, for the reasons enumerated below.

I am currently a candidate for mayor of Lecompton, and for the first time in many years,

we actually have competition for that office. I should note that this testimony is submitted by meas a candidate for local office and not on behalf of the City of Lecompton. Lecompton is a

Testimony on Kansas Senate Bill 211

Documents