Clay Wirestone, Kansas Reflector

Coldwater residents have learned a valuable lesson: Actions have consequences.

Their town’s twice-elected mayor, Joe Ceballos, has been charged with felony voter fraud by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach. Ceballos appears to have registered and cast ballots in multiple elections, despite not being a citizen. While you might expect townsfolk to respond with anger, that’s not the situation at all.

Indeed, a remarkable profile of Ceballos by veteran Kansas journalist Roy Wenzl shows a town shocked that such a good guy — “He’s more American than I am,” a friend said — would be charged. He’s a die-hard Republican in a place full of them. More than 83% of Comanche County voters picked Donald Trump for president last year. More than 78% appear to have chosen Kobach in 2022.

“If deportation happens, I can tell you that Kobach will have trouble showing up here, especially if he asks to stay with us for a while,” said Dennis Swayze, a rancher who mentored Ceballos.

But the attorney general hasn’t done anything wrong here. Kansas voters know precisely where Kobach stands and what he means to do. They have voted for him repeatedly. Trump, likewise, made no secret of his desire to oversee the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. Violent or nonviolent, with legal status or not, immigrants would be targeted.

That’s what Kobach and Trump promised.

Trump on immigrants in late 2023: “They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country.”

Kobach just last month on the Coldwater case: “It still effectively takes the vote away or cancels the vote of a U.S. citizen.”

Most town residents voted for these men. Whether they realize it or not, they’re getting what they wanted. On Election Day, they chose cruelty.

Expressions of dazed disbelief punctuate Wenzl’s story like infuriating landmines: “If you know Joe, you know Kobach picked the wrong guy” “Deportation would be, as I told Joe, like sending me to Egypt.” “He doesn’t take anything about America for granted.”

Residents who know Ceballos agonized about his voter registration, wondering if they should have provided better guidance. He made an honest mistake back in 1991, they say, and the mayor shouldn’t be made to pay the price.

But as they agonized, none appears to make the leap that their blind allegiance to a party that demonizes immigrants might have contributed to the problem.

Even today, even after these events, Ceballos’ friend Ryan Swayze offered this thumbnail political analysis: “Democrats think the government provides, while Republicans think the government should let us just do our thing.”

Republicans just let them do their thing, huh? Not in this case!

Here are some hard truths for the people of Coldwater.

As sure as if every Republican voter of Coldwater lined up to cast a stone at Ceballos, their choices at the ballot box in 2024 and 2022 had the same traumatic effect. They did this to their friend. They did this to their mayor. They did this to their beloved town fixture. And until they figure this out, our country and our state is not going to get better.

Take responsibility. Own up to your actions.

People whose brains have been liquefied by conservative propaganda believe they’re never to blame for adverse consequences. Setbacks always must be the doing of nefarious leftists. They’ve been turned into perpetual victims, always losing to a Clinton or an Obama or a Soros. But, of course, the fact is they’re part of one of the most successful political movements in American history. That political movement has goals and policies that are meant to be enacted.

If you demand responsibility and accountability from others, you must be willing to demand it from yourself as well. Follow conservative Republican beliefs to their logical conclusion and you will see many more good people punished for honest mistakes.

I didn’t feel great after reading Wenzl’s story. The mayor has all but admitted to the charges against him and said he voted in practically every election over the past 30-some years. If convicted of a felony, he seems likely to face deportation. Removal from the country could happen anyway, his lawyer fears.

That will leave Coldwater, Kansas and the United States all worse off. I sympathize with the mayor and wish state officials could show more empathy.

But that’s not what the majority of the public wanted. That’s not what Coldwater voted for. They should sit with that shame.

To paraphrase Walt Kelly: They have met the enemy and he is them.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

While I was off last week writing about Kansas journalists of the past, Kansas journalists of the present had a hell of a story drop in their laps.

Kansas Young Republican leaders were caught exchanging racist, homophobic and white supremacist messages through a group chat with others of their ilk throughout the nation. First reported by Politico, the messages included vice chairman William Hendrix using the words “n–ga” and “n–guh” and saying he admired an adjoining state’s GOP because “Missouri doesn’t like f–s.” Chairman Alex Dwyer used the racist code number “1488,” reacted with a happy face to another Young Republican saying he loved Hitler, and — somewhat perplexingly — wrote that “sex is gay.”

High-profile Kansas Republicans promptly denounced the two men, going out of their way to claim their words didn’t represent the party. Hendrix, who worked in Attorney General Kris Kobach’s office, was fired.

That’s all well and good. But was it enough? Does it actually address the dark clouds of hatred rolling across our state?

If you catch me on a good day, I might say yes. If you catch me on a particularly cranky day, I might say it doesn’t come close. So I wrote two versions of my take, and you can pick the one you prefer. Make sure to read through the end, though, because that’s where we figure out what’s actually happening.

The nice version

Kansas Republican leaders have shown that they have more courage and moral fortitude than U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance.

In quickly and unequivocally denouncing the hate-filled messages from Kansas Young Republicans, party leaders have taken a painful but necessary step. A country with two main political parties can not allow one of them to become a haven for racism, misogyny, homophobia and Nazi sympathizers.

For his part, the vice president claimed last week that too much was made of the messages — that “kids do stupid things, especially young boys.” Never mind that Young Republicans include those aged 18 to 40. His words might sound hypocritical, given that he just demanded mass punishments against those criticizing the late Charlie Kirk, but he was elected vice president, and you weren’t.

Thankfully, Kansas GOP bigwigs took a more honest and searching look. They even deactivated the state’s Young Republicans chapter. All those who spoke out — Kobach, state party chairwoman Danedri Herbert, Senate President Ty Masterson, former Gov. Jeff Colyer and insurance Commissioner Vicki Schmidt should be praised for understanding the seriousness of the moment and the necessity of acting quickly and decisively.

The mean version

Kansas GOP leaders have turned a blind eye to racism, homophobia and violent rhetoric for years.

Statements from prominent Republicans in the state have proclaimed that these shameful text messages don’t represent the party or what it stands for.

But as someone who has followed and covered Kansas politics for the last decade, I can tell you that these messages absolutely reflect a growing tendency within the party — especially the beliefs and rhetoric of younger staffers and activists.

Party leaders could have stepped in at any point to stop this problem. Kobach, Masterson and House Speaker Dan Hawkins could have said that while they might not support legislation protecting LGBTQ+ Kansas children, they believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect — including gay and trans folks. Instead, they strip fellow Kansans of life-saving medical care and persecute them through government agencies.

They could have actually forced Rep. Nick Hoheisel, R-Wichita, to face consequences after clashing with a Rep. Ford Carr, D-Wichita, on the House floor. They could have condemned actions by Reps. Patrick Penn, R-Wichita, and Kyler Sweely, R-Hutchinson, after they joked about shooting former Hutchinson Rep. Jason Probst. They could have cautioned Rep. Kristey Williams, R-Augusta, that focusing on the hurt feelings of “a little white girl” in learning about racism missed the point. They could have pushed back against transphobic rhetoric from former Rep. Cheryl Helmer, R-Mulvane. They could have condemned racist incidents faced by Rep. Rui Xu, D-Westwood. The GOP-supermajority House couldn’t even bring itself to oppose racism while passing a bill declaring antisemitism against the public policy of Kansas.

For that matter, party leaders could made it clear that they didn’t want to associate with Kobach after accusations that he employed white nationalists.

But here we are. We’ve lived through years of willful blindness to shameful bias. Kansas GOP leaders were more than happy to continue paying these folks’ salaries and allowing them to serve in government. Until last week, no one paid much of a penalty for racism, homophobia or violent rhetoric. (At least if that person was a Republican. Democrats who point this out can face dire consequences.)

The only reason bigwigs blinked this time was that a story appeared in a national outlet and included clear proof of these activists’ words. That’s it. Other reporting — like the multiple instances I’ve just mentioned — are dismissed as distractions at best and partisan attacks at worst.

Meanwhile, the Kansas Republican Party has leaned into racist trolling during the government shutdown. In social media posts, they put Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly in a sombrero and Department for Children and Families secretary Laura Howard in a Mexican wresting mask. Maybe you find the images funny, maybe you don’t, but I’m not sure how you can square them with Herbert’s claim that “we strive to eliminate racism and we condemn all racist acts and groups.”

Democrats have run people who say terrible things too. The Kansas party has faced its own internal strife. Partisans can lob “whatabouts” until their arms get tired.

But this story is about the Kansas Republican Party and its leaders. Until they clean house and turn their backs on years of winking and nodding at the worst among us, they have no standing to lecture anyone else about morality or good judgment. They have proved that they lack both.

The other version

I’m afraid that neither of the preceding versions of this column cover everything. As I thought about the situation more, I came to a conclusion that’s neither nice nor mean.

Kansas Republican leaders have nothing to lose by cutting young idiots loose. The ongoing GOP project in Kansas has one goal, and one goal alone: lowering tax rates for the obscenely wealthy and reducing restrictions on their businesses.

Any other controversy or infighting distracts from those goals.

People like William Hendrix and Alex Dwyer might have seen themselves as important to the state party and its future. Instead, they were pawns being used by entrenched oligarchs to further cement their power in the Sunflower State. The instant that these men became a liability for the state party, they were excommunicated. Masterson went out of his way to “categorically deny any association” with either.

The big-money interests who want to turn Kansas into a zero-tax paradise read the big national newspapers and websites. They don’t want to be embarrassed. A splashy story from Politico threatens their goals in a way that local news stories don’t.

Put succinctly, they can live with racism until it harms their larger project. Then, all those poor suckers who ironically embraced Hitler find themselves on the street.

In Kansas, like a casino, the owner always wins.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

There’s a word for what happened to Lenexa City Council member Melanie Arroyo, and it begins with an “r” and ends with “ism.”

Go ahead. Take a wild guess.

Arroyo was forced to prove her citizenship to city police after someone left a voicemail with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. We subsequently learned that the KBI deleted the message after informing local law enforcement of its contents. That could well conflict with document retention rules, but let’s save that for later. Instead, let’s scrutinize what the statewide crime-fighting agency told Lenexa police via email.

Their words suggest that Kansas has a long way to go in treating residents respectfully and equally.

According to a KBI agent, a man “called with a question regarding the citizenship of a member of the Lenexa City Council. He stated that in February of 2025 Melanie Arroyo (possibly Melanie Arroyo-Lopez), a representative for Ward 3, gave testimony wanting to give illegals more benefits. During this testimony, she acknowledged that she came to this country illegally as a child, but never acknowledged naturalization. He stated that this testimony was posted to the internet. He stated that to be a qualified elector, they had to be registered to vote and be born here or naturalized. He wanted to report this information for investigation.”

Big problems come to mind immediately. Namely that the KBI has passed along a bunch of patently false information.

Not a good look for the agency we depend on to keep Kansans safe.

First off, Arroyo’s full last name is Arroyo Pérez, not Arroyo-Lopez. Those two names actually sound quite different!

Secondly, “gave testimony wanting to give illegals more benefits” patently misstates Arroyo’s testimony. She argued for the continuation of current Kansas policy, not extending or expanding any policy.

Third, the email states that Arroyo “came to this country illegally as a child” based on her legislative testimony. That’s also untrue. She writes that she grew up as an undocumented migrant, but that doesn’t mean she or her family entered the United States illegally. Indeed, in a Kansas City Star op-ed published March 6, Arroyo notes that she came here legally but overstayed a visa.

Finally, the email claims that she “never acknowledged naturalization.” Actually, both the testimony and column state that her undocumented status had been “resolved.”

To summarize, the information that the KBI forwarded to the Lenexa Police Department contains four factual errors. These aren’t the kind of mistakes that take time or effort to uncover, either. You literally just have to read Arroyo’s actual words, as submitted to lawmakers and as published in the region’s newspaper of record.

Did no one at the KBI do this?

Did no one on the Lenexa police force do this?

If not, why?

Taken as a whole, I see clear signs of racism. You can see it in the confusion of last names. You can see it in the use of the word “illegals.” You can see it in the automatic assumption that anyone who looks a certain way, sounds a certain way, comes from a particular background, necessitates scrutiny. As I wrote last week, there’s just as much reason to ask Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach about his citizenship status. (That is, none.)

State and local law enforcement also failed to think critically. Ponder this: Would a Lenexa resident of distinction — a city council member, no less — give public testimony about benefits for undocumented Kansans and not have her own papers in order? Officers were asked to believe Arroyo was somehow willing to risk prison time, removal from office and deportation just so she could voice her opinion on a proposed bill.

The KBI and the Lenexa police force probably didn’t set out with an explicit intention of harming Arroyo. Yet they did not give her the benefit of the doubt, either. They did not consider publicly available sources. They did not treat the recorded words from a “Johnson County man” with the appropriate amount of skepticism or critical thought. They decided that shaming a public official made more sense than questioning their own motives.

Take it from your friendly neighborhood journalist. Public officials in Kansas need to do a better job of checking their sources.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

Here’s a quick question for you today. Is Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach a U.S. citizen?

I’m just asking.

It seems a reasonable question given the insulting intimidation directed toward Lenexa City Council member Melanie Arroyo after a tipster left a voicemail at the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. The KBI forwarded the information to Lenexa police, who forced the people’s elected representative to show them her papers. Surely Kobach can do the same for Kansans. You know, just to put our minds at rest.

Turns out that Arroyo had testified in February against Senate Bill 254, legislation that would have barred undocumented students from receiving in-state college tuition rates. She also wrote an op-ed column for the Kansas City Star about her experiences. In both testimony and column, she mentioned overstaying her visa but noted her status had been resolved.

So what on Earth was there to investigate?

What obligates the KBI — overseen by Kobach — to decide a random voicemail is worthy of Lenexa police’s attention? Surely they don’t forward every random call that comes in. Surely their actions don’t have anything to do with Arroyo’s name or ethnicity or public opposition to anti-migrant propaganda. Surely.

Kansas Reflector editor Sherman Smith‘s must-read story suggests that all agencies and officials involved have tried to pass the buck.

KBI spokeswoman Melissa Underwood said the agency doesn’t investigate immigration questions, so “the information was sent to the Lenexa Police Department for follow-up as they deemed appropriate.” Lenexa city attorney Sean McLaughlin tried to dodge responsibility too, saying a city ordinance required citizenship for officeholders. Police were just doing their jobs, even though there wasn’t any evidence to suspect Arroyo of anything.

“Just because evidence doesn’t exist doesn’t mean we don’t investigate,” McLaughlin told Smith.

What kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is this?

Here’s my challenge to state and local law enforcement. If there’s no threshold at all, if agents can be dispatched to harass public officials based on innuendo, let’s welcome more elected lawmakers to the party. They can hop into Arroyo’s shoes and see how they like it.

I ask once again: Do we actually know that Kobach is a U.S. citizen?

He might be one, sure. It even looks likely, based on his biography and multiple terms in public office. One assumes that Gov. Laura Kelly’s opposition research team would have ferreted out any scandals back in 2018.

But we don’t know for sure.

I haven’t seen his birth certificate. He wrote a book about South Africa and studied overseas, at Oxford University in Great Britain. And notably, in his testimony supporting SB 254, he doesn’t make his U.S. citizenship absolutely clear. If that was a problem for Arroyo’s testimony — as McLaughlin suggested — surely it should be a red flag for Kobach’s.

Surely, sufficiently suspicious law enforcement officials would find reason to investigate, right? After all, they would just be asking for Kobach’s papers. That wouldn’t be a big deal, given that all of us carry around copies of our birth certificates at all times. It would sure be a relief for the rest of us to know that our attorney general is actually a citizen of the United States.

Kobach endorsed just this approach back in 2010. Then he was calling on President Barack Obama to release a detailed version of his birth certificate.

“It doesn’t have a doctor’s signature on it,” Kobach said, according to the Associated Press’ John Hanna. “Look, until a court says otherwise, I’m willing to accept that he’s a natural U.S. citizen. But I think it is a fair question: Why just not produce the long-form birth certificate?”

If you have read through all the above and think I’m full of it, fair.

But if you believe that Arroyo and Kobach are clearly different, that asking for papers from one makes sense while asking for papers from the other sounds silly, ask yourself why. One elected official enjoys the benefit of the doubt. The other elected official doesn’t.

One will go to the office tomorrow and never have to wonder about being racially profiled. He will enjoy institutional support from his state and party.

The other official will face uncertainty and fear, the knowledge that earning citizenship and winning office the “right way” counts for nothing when an anonymous message can threaten her livelihood.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

Here is what we know: The gargantuan budget reconciliation package making its way through Congress will kick thousands of Kansans off Medicaid and cost the state’s hospitals billions of dollars.

Here’s something else we know: U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, doesn’t deny those facts.

But he still voted for the bill.

Moran issued a statement after the Senate voted for President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” early Tuesday. What’s remarkable about the senator’s words are not what they say, but what they don’t say.

I encourage everyone to take a look at the text. Here’s an enlightening paragraph.

“As this legislation was being drafted, I worked to make certain hospitals in Kansas were at the forefront of these discussions. After numerous discussions with Kansas hospital leaders, my colleagues and Administrator Oz, I was able to make changes to the legislation to make certain Kansas hospitals will not face any immediate cuts upon enactment of this legislation.”

Notice, again, what Moran omits. He doesn’t deny that Kansas hospitals will face cuts. He can’t, because he knows they will. Instead, he says they won’t face any immediate cuts.

That’s like saying I don’t face an immediate risk of death from the train hurtling toward my stalled car on the tracks. I might feel fine in the moment, but I’ll be squashed in no time.

Moran goes on:

“These provisions will protect Kansas’ ability to continue pursuing its application for increased Medicaid payments for certain providers. This change ensures that as state directed payments wind down, Kansas providers will be starting at a higher percentage of enhanced payments buying them much-needed time to utilize federal dollars as payments are reduced.”

Notice how many conditionals have been piled into this paragraph. Kansas can “continue pursuing” an application for increased payments. That doesn’t mean the state is going to actually receive such payments. And who will those increased payments go to? Well, certain providers. That doesn’t mean everyone.

And what’s with the “much-needed time”? It’s much needed because, as Moran says later in the sentence, payments will be reduced. All of this should raise the eyebrows of critical readers. Why shouldn’t Moran support the enhanced payments and oppose the other cuts? I think that “R” after his name might provide a clue.

“I also secured a one-year delay in the implementation of reductions to state directed payments to give Kansas providers more time to access these resources. Finally, I pushed for the establishment of a rural provider fund to aid rural hospitals facing significant financial challenges. These changes and investments, along with tax cuts for Kansas families, will bolster our economy and strengthen the safety of our nation.”

Yes, the legislation passed by the U.S. Senate includes a $50 billion fund for rural hospitals. However, it’s worth digging into the details. That money will be paid out over five years and available to all 50 states. Given that Kansas hospitals will experience a $2.65 billion drop over 10 years, basic math suggests that that federal money won’t go far enough.

Finally, it’s important to note two items that Moran’s statement leaves out entirely.

He does not call the piece of legislation the “one big, beautiful bill.” He instead refers to it as “Senate budget reconciliation legislation.” The senator apparently wants to distance himself from Trump and any bombast surrounding this package. However, he still voted for it.

Most disappointingly, Moran makes no mention whatsoever of the 13,000 Kansans who will lose insurance coverage through this package. Indeed, he does not mention Medicaid recipients a single time in his statement.

Farmers, yes. The border, yes. Air traffic controllers, sure.

But poor people who need health insurance? Nah.

Moran has built a lot of goodwill across Kansas. His prairie pragmatism still contrasts positively to the MAGA theatrics of U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall. But that post-passage statement relies on narrow, legalistic arguments to pitch a package that will harm the state he purports to represent.

Real people’s lives and communities are on the line here. Trump’s administration has asked lawmakers to play reverse Robin Hood, snatching benefits from the poor to benefit the rich.

All the carefully tailored language in the world won’t change that.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

The Trump administration has put my town — the place my family and I call home — on its hit list for a thought crime.

What horrible thing have the people of Lawrence and wider Douglas County done to deserve this fate? Apparently, we don’t sufficiently detest immigrants.

Put questions of legal status aside. As we all know, it doesn’t matter to the hate-bloated buffoons in Washington, D.C., what papers a person has or doesn’t have. They will ship you off to a foreign gulag if you’re the wrong color or in the wrong place. Because Lawrence had the unmitigated audacity to care about people who look different, it has been threatened with the full wrath of the federal government.

It might be shocking, if so little was shocking these days.

The Department of Homeland Security posted a list of 500-plus “sanctuary jurisdictions” on its website May 29, highlighting cities and counties that supposedly run afoul of its anti-immigrant agenda. Three days later, officials took down the page after an outcry from local law enforcement. Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can still browse the list and read the government’s inflammatory rhetoric: “DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens.”

There’s a lot to unpack there — immigrants commit fewer crimes than those born in the United States, for one thing — but let’s press on. The point is that my town and county landed on the list. Let’s try to figure out why.

Back in 2020, the city passed an ordinance protecting undocumented folks. Two years later, the Kansas Legislature pushed through a bill banning sanctuary cities, and Lawrence subsequently revised its ordinance. You can read the current city code here.

What’s important to note is that the current language gives wide berth to state and federal law, making clear that the city won’t obstruct or hinder federal immigration enforcement. By the same token, that doesn’t mean the city has to pursue a brazenly anti-immigration path. Lawrence can and should represent the will of voters, while following applicable law. And those voters, through their elected representatives, chose to make their city a welcoming one.

So how did Lawrence end up on the list? Apparently because it didn’t spew enough hatred for the White House’s liking.

A senior DHS official told NPR that “designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction, noncompliance with federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pontificated on Fox News: “Some of the cities have pushed back. They think because they don’t have one law or another on the books that they don’t qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.”

Note those phrases from the official and Noem: “Self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction.” “One law or another.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter what ordinances a city or county has on the books. It doesn’t matter what the actual laws may be. It apparently depends on what a city calls itself and how the Trump administration feels about it.

No city or county sets out to break the law. They have attorneys on staff or retainer to make sure they don’t break myriad legal restrictions. Lawrence followed the law in enacting its original ordinance, and when the law changed, officials followed along. But few want to step out and say such things publicly, given that federal officials have tremendous resources behind them. They could crush any city or county if they wished, through legal bills alone.

Thankfully, as mentioned above, sheriffs across the nation pushed back.

“This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation,” said National Sheriffs’ Association president Sheriff Kieran Donahue. “Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label. This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.”

Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister was similarly outspoken in comments to the Lawrence Journal-World: “We feel like the goalposts have been moved on us, and this is now merely a subjective process where one person gets to decide our status on this list based on their opinion.”

Thanks to the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment, we are not required to love, like or even respect our government. We are not required to voice support of its goals. We are not required to say anything that we don’t want to say about immigration, immigrants or ICE.

Republicans understood that full well when Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama were in office. Both faced torrents of criticism on this very subject.

Those presidents took the abuse. It was, and is, part of the job.

Now President Donald Trump and his anti-immigration minions have to deal with the fact that a different segment of the public vehemently disagrees with their immigration policies. That’s OK. That’s protected expression. Within the bounds of law, we are also free to define our towns, cities and counties however we want. Accusing local governments of thought crimes desecrates and defames our Constitution.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

In their apparent eagerness to save money and do right by taxpayers, perhaps Kansas Republican leaders could try passing laws that don’t trample on the rights of their constituents.

That’s my only response to lawsuits filed throughout May that highlight the downright sloppy lawmaking that has become a hallmark of our state’s rushed, secretive legislative session. Bills are introduced and rubber-stamped in committee, testimony from experts is ignored, and the House and Senate send them through with nary a speed bump.

Afterward, the taxpayers of Kansas have to foot the bill for any carelessness.

Let’s take a quick look at the lawsuits and their subjects. Up first, Kansas Reflector editor in chief Sherman Smith, who reported the following May 28.

Two transgender teenagers and their parents are challenging a new Kansas law that bans gender-affirming care for minors.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the national ACLU filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Douglas County District Court on behalf of a 16-year-old trans boy and a 13-year-old trans girl. The lawsuit argues the new law violates state constitutional rights for equal protection, personal autonomy and parenting.

Senate Bill 63 prohibits health care providers from using surgery, hormones or puberty blockers to treat anyone younger than 18 who identifies with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. Health care providers who break the law may be subject to civil penalties and stripped of their license.

Next, Reflector reporter Anna Kaminski wrote about another lawsuit on May 19.

A Kansas reproductive rights advocacy group, backed by a Washington, D.C., law firm, sued state officials over a new law banning financial contributions from “foreign nationals” to support or oppose constitutional amendments.

The group, Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, argued in a complaint filed in federal court Friday that House Bill 2106, which passed the Legislature in April and is set to go into effect July 1, is broad, vague and unconstitutional. The group said the bill inhibits its ability to advocate for or against future constitutional amendments. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom and its donors have received contributions from foreign nationals, the lawsuit said.

The complaint drew a connection between HB 2106 and opposition to the 2022 ballot measure that sought to limit reproductive rights. Voters rejected the proposed constitutional amendment by a 59-41 margin.

But wait, there’s still more! Here’s senior reporter Morgan Chilson on May 6.

Three advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit Monday in Douglas County District Court challenging the Kansas Legislature’s attempt to “arbitrarily” reject advance ballots of voters if the mail system fails to deliver them by Election Day.

Kansas Appleseed, Loud Light and Disability Rights Center of Kansas are asking the court to find Senate Bill 4 unconstitutional. Defendants are Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew.

SB 4, which the Legislature passed this year, disqualifies any mail-in ballots not received by 7 p.m. on Election Day. Previously, mail-in ballots were counted if they were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within three days later.

You can read the law here. You can read the lawsuit here.

We covered all of these proposals at various stages, from twinkles in legislators’ eyes to enshrinement in the statute books. Leaders sent the anti-trans bill to Gov. Laura Kelly as their first act of business in the 2025 session. She allowed the foreign nationals ban to become law without her signature and a warning that it “went too far.” The advance-voting bill was called “pure partisan politics” by former Rep. Ann Mah.

Sure, the deluge of wastewater emanating from the Statehouse in 2025 may have overwhelmed at times. But none of this should have come as a surprise.

If people or groups believe the government has infringed on their rights — to medical care, to advocacy, to voting — no one can be surprised if they bring legal action. When senators and representatives cast votes on such issues, they decide whether the state should place a barrier in front of the people they represent. No amount of victim blaming or sanctimonious claptrap obscures the truth.

Defending the laws falls to Attorney General Kris Kobach and his office. Who pays their salaries? You and me and all the people of Kansas. We’re all on the hook for legislative foolishness.

The state may win some or all of these suits. So may those who filed them. Regardless, their mere presence suggests that our elected officials tread far too easily into the swamps of ideological overreaction. Rather than representing all, they have bowed and scraped in service to a hateful few.

We will see the consequences play out before judges in the months ahead.

I hate how we talk about politics.

This might come as a surprise, because at least part of my day job involves writing about politics in Kansas. But the exposure has solidified my belief that lawmakers, officials, journalists and the general public all could do a better job of thinking about what they’re doing and why.

Our conversation about politics fails at least in part because it’s inevitably couched in adversarial terms. In one metaphor, Democrats and Republicans are two teams fighting for victories. This leaves less-engaged members of the public as passive spectators and suggests that ideological debate exists only to score points for one side or another. Cue the cheers and pouring of Gatorade.

I hate that.

In another metaphor, the parties and their ideological camps fight a brutal war. This has become the favored interpretation recently, as politicians nursing grudges try to crush their opponents through the machinery of government. During a war, both sides strive for enduring victory, and the ends might justify the means.

I hate that even more.

Each of these metaphors depends on fundamentally distorting the nature of governance. The game metaphor depicts statesmanship as meaningless posturing. The war metaphor insists that half of the country (pick your half) has gone to an irredeemably dark place.

In reality, we elect people to public office to make our state and nation better, representing us while they do so.

We can debate the “better,” and we can debate who that “us” includes, but politics exist to shape government.

For that reason, I think we need a new metaphor, one that doesn’t pit Americans against one another. Perhaps this metaphor could cool temperatures and increase cooperation. Or maybe not. I’m trying to be realistic here.

Regardless, we should work toward thinking of politics as a neighborhood bar. Not an ominous dive, mind you, or a place for students to pick up one another. No, a cozy neighborhood watering hole, the kind of place called a “pub” by our cousins in Britain or “Cheers” by Ted Danson and company.

If you’re not lucky enough to be familiar with such a spot, let me elaborate. It serves as a community gathering spot. It has regulars. The bartenders know the customers and chat, or don’t, as required. You can visit and read a book in the corner or debate philosophy. You can spend a couple of hours there with friends or drop by for 20 minutes. Whatever you like.

Such bars don’t primarily exist to intoxicate customers. Sure, people will have a drink or two, but the business doesn’t depend on customers imbibing to excess. No, the drinks serve as a bit of social lubricant. Folks might just have a soft drink and check up on friends.

What I appreciate about such bars is that any one person’s political leanings make no difference. The customer might be a diehard MAGA supporter or pushy progressive. Regardless, if you insult the bartender or order too many drinks, you’re not welcome. If you’re friendly and get along with others, you have an open invitation to visit. How you behave matters.

Sure, you encounter some loudmouths. You put up with some cranks. But you accept them as part of the scenery.

Our country would be stronger if we engaged in politics the way people visit such bars. A variety of people come together, with mutual respect. Differences can be aired, or not, depending on how we feel. And everyone unites if something needs to be done. In a bar like this, if someone gets sick or has an emergency, everyone springs into action. The bartender calls for assistance. Others will tend to the distressed person. Still others will watch outside for help to arrive.

You don’t see such behavior just in bars, of course.

You can see it in coffee shops or restaurants that the enjoy the patronage of regulars. You can see it in social clubs and certain houses of worship. You can see it at trivia nights and bowling leagues. You can see it among extended families.

In all of these circumstances, we primarily value one another as people — not as politicians or activists, not as Democrats or Republicans, not as liberals or conservatives. We give one another the benefit of the doubt and wish the best for them and their loved ones and families.

Unfortunately, we live in a turbocharged political world. No one benefits from unilateral disarmament, so extremism spirals. Treating government debates as pitched battles leads to extreme rhetoric and destructive actions. Policy-making suffers, and the general public pays the price.

In my job as Kansas Reflector opinion editor and columnist, I work in this context. That means I often write forcefully, passionately. Real people and their families have become entangled in the rhetoric. The consequences appear so grave that no other course makes sense. I can’t be the one man sipping a cocktail while others aim howitzers and launch Hail Marys.

I hope that in years to come we can somehow wrench ourselves away from that narrow, zero-sum approach to politics and toward a community-focused, humanistic approach. Such a change would take everyone deciding to rethink our basic approach toward local, state and federal government.

I wouldn’t hate that.

In an alternate universe, an unnamed news weekly runs the following, laudatory op-ed from a Kansas politician.

As a humble U.S. senator from Kansas who is definitely not Roger Marshall or Jerry Moran, it fills me with ecstasy to write a column commemorating the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second, but hopefully not last, administration.

Yes, I understand that more than 40% of Kansans supposedly voted for Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris. I’m assuming that was fraud. The actual residents of our state knew what they were supporting in November 2024: using tariffs to choke off the world’s agriculture markets and plunge the economy into a recession!

Wait, did I get that right? Let me check. I am being told I did.

Rest assured, we here in Congress are 100% behind the president’s agenda, whatever that might be at the moment of this writing. Sure, it’s hitting folks back home. Institutions they depended on — from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to higher education — are being gutted by children supervised by the world’s richest man. Again, though, that’s definitely what Kansans wanted from our president. I support every bit of it, so please don’t criticize me on X, Elon.

Sure, some sticks-in-the-mud claimed that wasn’t what they wanted. They showed up en masse at a town hall to tell me so. Don’t worry, we fixed that problem. My staff declared they aren’t real Kansas. We can’t open the detention centers soon enough!

Real Kansans crave poverty. I mean, think about it. What do you think about when you think of Kansas? The Wizard of Oz. The movie version was filmed during the Great Depression and portrayed Kansas as a sepia-toned hellhole. That’s what folks want for our great state! Child labor, a gutted National Weather Service that can’t warn us about tornadoes, the Dust Bowl. Classic Kansas.

Again, let me check my notes on this. I just want to triple-check I’m getting it right because it sounds like political suicide.

No? This is really what I’m supposed to be suggesting? Hoo boy.

Now, you might wonder about the point of vast economic and societal disruption. I think I speak for everyone in Congress when I say enthusiastically: I don’t know! Neither does anyone in the White House. However, the president has informed us that it’s all going to work out great — as everything he’s ever done has always worked out great — and that doesn’t make me nervous at all.

Are we worried about broken promises? Of course not! This president has always delivered on his promises. Remember the amazing Obamacare replacement plan? Remember infrastructure week? Remember how he ended the Russia-Ukraine war on day one of his second term? Remember how he said that Mexico would pay for a border wall, and Americans would never pay the cost of tariffs?

I rest my case. Promises made, results delivered.

A few in the chattering class have said otherwise. They point out that the U.S. Congress actually has the power to levy or lift tariffs. They point out that the U.S. Congress actually has control of how the government spends money. They point out that the president can be restrained by Congress if we just get off our duffs. But do they realize how boring that sounds?

It’s all going to be fine! Folks need to realize they can go work in the new factories that are sure to dot the landscape in just a few months, or possibly weeks, if the president has suggested that. Because that’s definitely how big business and industry works — the president enacts incomprehensible, quickly reversed policies and reality changes around us. Instantly!

These same communist critics say that as a U.S. senator I should be spending more time sticking up for Kansans rather than licking the boots of a would-be tyrant. But I ask you, have you actually tasted the boots? They’re quite delicious!

Plus, this means I won’t get yelled at online by Elon, who I don’t mind telling you is A LOT. I can refuse to meet with the people who yelled at me in Kansas. Have you tried ditching Elon? Even Trump can’t get rid of him.

Please remember that anyone who says or thinks otherwise has Trump Derangement Syndrome. TDS! They’re the ones who are totally deranged and have no idea what’s going on, not the administration that accidentally texted war plans to a journalist. We’ve all butt-dialed someone who’s not our spouse with secret war plans, right?

All in all, I would say this has been an amazing first 1,000 days. Whoops! I mean 100 days. I’m absolutely not at all nervous about what the president is doing — trashing export markets that farmers depend upon, slashing services that Kansans at home expect, and generally turning our economy into smoldering wreckage.

If I were you, I’d be worried! But I’ll be fine. My seat is guaranteed! Sometimes I wonder why I even campaign.

In conclusion, Trump has been fantastic! And I’m sure that after the second 100 days his total mastery of our political system will be even clearer. That, or we’ll be in some sort of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome situation.

If not, at least I won’t have debased myself quite as badly as Roger Marshall did. Did you see his Newsweek op-ed? He didn’t mention tariffs once.

I’ll be fine, though.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

So, wait a minute. Is threatening political violence acceptable now?

You see, I recall the ancient days of October 2024, when Kansas Republicans frothed in rage at the story of a University of Kansas lecturer who made an unfortunate comment to his students about shooting people who wouldn’t vote for a female president. But just this week, Republican Rep. Patrick Penn of Wichita joked with Hutchinson Rep. Kyler Sweeley about shooting former Rep. Jason Probst.

As far as I can tell, no Republican said a word.

One would imagine — and I’m just a simple country opinion editor here — that the ever-moral and upstanding Kansas GOP would rush to condemn such an offensive statement. After all, four months ago they were flooding my inbox with messages about how much they abhorred any suggestion of violence.

Perhaps that only counted when it came from Democrats. After all, GOP President Donald Trump gave political thuggery a warm bear hug last month, pardoning the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrectionists. It’s difficult to take a principled stand when you’re an enthusiastic member of a violence-worshipping cult of personality.

As always, Kansas Republicans, I’d love to be proved wrong. You can step up any time.

I should note that Probst wrote about the situation here and here on his Substack blog, “That Guy in Hutch.” He has thoughts, as you might imagine.