By Martin Hawver
Politically, it appears that chances are good that the Kansas Legislature, all members of which stand for re-election this year, will be handed a new vehicle this week to challenge Gov. Laura Kelly’s leadership in battling coronavirus in Kansas.
Just where that vehicle goes? Well, we’ll learn later this week after lawmakers have had time to consider new legislation dealing with the governor’s authority to declare an emergency in the state and just what from a 30,000-foot level she can do to return Kansans to the lifestyles they have had for decades.
She’s already shed some of her authority to establish strict limits on just what Kansans can and can’t do while the disease is spreading. Her plan for beating the disease has been loosened, and she’s given to county health officers — and the county commissions that hire them – more authority.
It turns out that the land looks different from 30,000-feet over a county with no known cases of coronavirus and those that have had sizable outbreaks either at nursing homes or at industries that provide the paychecks that drive those counties’ economies.
Basically, look for lawmakers, who have already seen some counties stick with the governor’s recommendations to gradually reopen the economy, to have to weigh just what’s happening to their constituents – voters – and whether local control that is a key phrase for many lawmakers is going to work safely.
Oh, there are some other issues, like making sure that health care and first-responders have some logical protections from liability for assisting those stricken, or those in danger of catching, the disease. Oh, and delaying property taxes and state income tax deadlines.
But it really comes down to a couple simple issues. Lawmakers need to find the best course to allow someone – that’s someone else – to contain this pandemic while allowing cities and counties to reopen for business, to bring back jobs, to make it possible for everyone to make their house and car payments and get on with life in a social-distanced environment.
Now, if you are a legislator, it makes sense to hand that return to Kansas as we know it to someone else. And the choices go two ways. It’s either gubernatorial level control over reducing the dangers of the disease, or it is bringing that control down to the local level. Kelly has already reduced her plan to “suggestions.”
And local control sounds good. But if one county opens the restaurants and bars and the neighboring county doesn’t, or has made it so difficult to operate at a profitable level with the distancing and masks and shields that you have to drive across a county line for that anniversary dinner, have you really dealt with the statewide issue of containing COVID-19?
That’s likely to be the choice for lawmakers later this week. Every member has his/her own district and constituents, but they all live in the same state.
Oh, there are some controversial issues to be dealt with, but they aren’t generally headline-grabbers. Like liability, always a hot dinner-table topic. Can you not return to work and still get unemployment benefits if it’s dangerous or your employer doesn’t demand masks and gloves and social distancing? Can you really delay your county property tax and state income tax payments until you are working again?
And, of course, what comes down to public health and what comes down to local political/business issues of voters and campaign contributors.
We’ll see how this goes…
Syndicated by Hawver News Company LLC of Topeka; Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver's Capitol Report—to learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit the website at www.hawvernews.com