Clay Wirestone, Kansas Reflector

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.

Opinion editor Clay Wirestone’s weekly roundup of legislative flotsam and jetsam. Read the archive.

Hey, Kansans! Are you excited and delighted by the work of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency workers in rooting through government records in search of waste?

Do we have a deal for you!

The Kansas Legislature has formed its very own Senate Committee on Government Efficiency (COGE instead of DOGE) and has asked residents to submit their ideas on making government leaner, meaner and more attuned to the needs of South African-born billionaires! Ha, ha. Just joking a bit there, folks. I’m sure that the bigwigs behind the Kansas committee have your best interests at heart, just like those teens and twentysomethings poking around in D.C. buildings.

You can see more about the committee at its official legislative website here. Wichita Republican Sen. Renee Erickson has stepped up to serve as chair. Overland Park Democratic Sen. Cindy Holscher has taken the ranking minority member spot. We await their findings with bated breath.

Governor Laura Kelly giving her State of the State address on Jan. 15, 2025. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)

Kelly speaks out

You had to read deep into the articles for her name, but Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly popped up in national news coverage last week.

She serves as chairwoman of the Democratic Governors Association and joined a call with other state chief executives from her party with U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. During the call, Kelly pressed Schumer on the party’s online strategy, saying it needed to be “down and dirty,” according to New York Times reporting.

That might be one of the few times I’ve ever considered Kelly in connection to that phrase. On the other hand, given her party’s mostly ineffectual response to the early days of Donald Trump’s second term, who can argue?

Speak that truth to power, governor.

The back of House Speaker Dan Hawkins’ head can be spotted on Jan. 13, 2025 — from the perspective that journalists now have in his chamber. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)

Those pesky staffers

You know how I hate to be a pest about news media access in the Kansas House.

But after House Speaker Dan Hawkins barred reporters from their longtime press box on the floor, relegating them to reporting from the balcony, I’ve been documenting his shifting justifications and overall animosity toward the Fourth Estate. What can I say? It’s my job.

Hawkins finally claimed that he banished news media because House staffers needed the space for their work. The day he said that, a handful of staff members sat behind the desk to prove his point. But according to accounts from Kansas Reflector reporters, the onetime press box has remained mostly empty since then. Surely Hawkins wouldn’t have been misleading his members and the public to justify animus toward reporters?

Surely not, right?

From left, Sens. William Clifford, Beverly Gossage and Cindy Holscher hear testimony on Jan. 28, 2025, a bill proposing a ban on gender-affirming care for children. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)

Voices of opposition

On Monday, I wrote about the Legislature’s shameful bullying of transgender children. I want to share a couple of additional perspectives on the legislation (Senate Bill 63).

First, the Kansas ACLU issued a release urging Kelly to reject the bill when it comes to her desk: “ ACLU condemns Kansas lawmakers’ repeat attack on Kansans’ personal healthcare decisions; urges governor veto.”

“We remain unconvinced that this legislature understands the real concerns and constitutional protections afforded to everyday Kansans, and their rush to push this government intrusion through demonstrates it all the more,” said executive director Micah Kubic.

Second, Loud Light director of advocacy Melissa Stiehler sent along testimony her group submitted opposing the bill. It hasn’t been posted online as part of the public record.

“It’s deeply troubling to me that both the House and Senate moved forward with debating and voting on this bill before the written testimony submitted by Kansas voters — your constituents — was made available to legislators, and that even after the vote, the record of testimony is inaccessible,” she wrote.

You can take a look here, if you’d like.

Demonstrators outside the U.S. Senate buildings on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., protest billionaire Elon Musk and the Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development on Feb. 5, 2025. (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

In these times

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve received numerous email messages from folks expressing distress about the political situation in Washington, D.C. Many ask what can be done to spread the word about the latest Trump- or Musk-related outrage or how they can make their perspectives heard.

Yes, the news alarms. Yes, we’ve seen norms tossed aside and checks and balances ignored. Yes the administration has taken Steve Bannon’s advice to flood the zone with waste to heart. I will not deny or diminish these truths or the challenges they pose.

Yet I plan to stay the course with what we do here in the opinion section.

We will continue to focus on state government and politics, and the way in which those intersect with everyday Kansans’ lives. Numerous reporters and opinion writers can and will tackle the national situation. They have the access and the knowledge about those issues. We have the access and the knowledge about Kansas. That’s where our work can inform the most people.

We will also restrain ourselves from overheated speculation or hyperbole. You could write countless pieces about bad things that might happen. I don’t think those serve readers especially well. Again, such content can be found elsewhere.

Demagogues in Washington, D.C., want nothing more than to panic and overwhelm those who disagree with them politically. I believe they want to either provoke extreme reactions — which they can then exploit — or shut down opponents altogether. The only way to deal with such an approach is to not accept its premises. I don’t, and you shouldn’t either.

Remain vigilant. Stay calm. Never silence yourself.

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.

Opinion editor Clay Wirestone’s weekly roundup of legislative flotsam and jetsam. Read the archive.

The Kansas Statehouse overflowed with political props on Tuesday.

Sure, those who visited the building would have seen hundreds of children in yellow scarves, ostensibly on hand to support a pricey school voucher bill. Yet lawmakers and those who brought these students to the building didn’t see them as people. They saw them as political props, raw material for their longtime crusade to destroy public education.

I walked among the kids that day. I heard what they said to one another and saw how they behaved. I noticed the games they played on their phones and watched the smirks they shared with one another. These students didn’t give a flying fig about legislation that would benefit their schools and parents with state dollars siphoned from public schools.

They were along for the ride, being exploited by the adults in their lives.

For the record, state data shows that roughly 26,000 students attend private schools, while about 476,000 attend public schools. But can you imagine the outrage from Republican ideologues if public schools swamped the Statehouse with their students? Can you imagine the cries of liberal indoctrination?

Thanks to my eighth-grader, I know precisely what at least a share of those public school students were doing Tuesday. They attended an orchestra performance at the Topeka Performing Arts Center, just three blocks away. Lawmakers could have strolled over to see actual learning.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s first glimpse at “Rebel Women,” the new art installation of suffragist icons at the Kansas Statehouse. (Anna Kaminski/Kansas Reflector)

Suffragette Statehouse

The day after students swarmed, a more mature audience turned out for the unveiling of Phyllis Garibay-Coon’s mural memorializing Kanas suffrage activists. Titled “Rebel Women,” the towering artwork has to be seen in person.

I’ve never experienced such a crowd in the rotunda. While I don’t consider myself claustrophobic, the crowd was something to behold.

As a sequence of speakers, including Gov. Laura Kelly, lauded the proud example of women who fought for their right to vote and participate in civic life, I couldn’t help but think about all the ways in which the current Legislature has aimed to tear down their accomplishments.

For example, we’ve already seen hearings on a bill that would limit voting rights. We’ve already seen bills proposed to ban abortion. And we’ve watched as broad majorities in both chambers singled out a minority group for public shame and approbation.

Legislative leaders would no doubt claim there’s no connection between the glorious past and corrupt present. Political blinders can obscure the most obvious truths.

Remembering Robinson

Former Kansas City, Kansas, Rep. Marvin Robinson gained notoriety during his single term in office. A Democrat, he ended up voting with Republicans on many bills. He lost his primary bid in August and died later that month.

His former colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come together, though, proposing House Bill 2029. Sponsored by Wichita Republican Rep. Patrick Penn, the bill is cosponsored by 109 other representatives. It would rename “a portion of K-5 highway as the Representative Marvin S Robinson II memorial highway.”

A hearing was held Wednesday.

Two hearings on Jan. 28, 2025, on identical bills attempting to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youths drew large crowds and more than 400 pieces of written testimony. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)

Gender-affirming care vote

The House and Senate sent Gov. Laura Kelly a ban on gender-affirming care Friday. The final House vote in favor of Senate Bill 63 was 83-35. That’s notably one shy of the 84 votes needed to overcome an expected gubernatorial veto.

But advocates shouldn’t get ahead of themselves. Seven representatives didn’t make the vote, and among them were four Republicans. If all support the ban, that’s more than enough to force it into law.

I’ll have more on this topic later.

Press restrictions remain

At the end of three weeks, reporters still can’t access the press box in the House of Representatives. Despite the news coverage and political pushback, House Speaker Dan Hawkins has stood his ground with the support of his caucus.

That doesn’t make the move acceptable, however. Neither was Senate President Ty Masterson’s move to bar reporting from the Senate floor three years ago. So I’m going to make a point of noting these limits in these roundups for the rest of the session.

Make yourselves comfy, dear readers.

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.

What if a political party holding near total power in a state admits to stalling bills for nakedly political purposes?

What if a political party holding near total power in a state admits to throwing away taxpayer money?

What if a political party holding near total power in a state admits to planning a repeat of budgetary catastrophe?

House Republican Majority Leader Chris Croft has turned those rhetorical questions above into all-too-real ones. Recordings of private Zoom calls among Croft and other Republicans were obtained by Kansas Reflector this week, and they show him making a strong case for why his party should lose its legislative supermajority. If a supposedly fiscally and temperamentally conservative party can’t restrain its urges to spend like a teenager with their first credit card, why should voters trust it?

Fair-minded folks would wonder why that political party holds so much power, and they might ponder whether its opponents could do better. You know, just as a f’rinstance.

Take it away, Croft!

On passing both a tax cut package and a stadium plan for Kansas City sports franchises: “I don’t want to give her what we currently have and that, because then she’s going to take credit, and that’ll be her signature. We want to make it painful to get there.”

On spending levels overall: “In the last six years that the governor’s been there, and by the way, the six years I’ve been there, we’ve increased spending 56%. It’s awful. We got to stop this. I mean, we’re just as drunk on that money as anybody else is. We got to stop doing that.”

On future tax plans reminiscent of former Gov. Sam Brownback’s failed experiment: Croft is working toward “reducing the corporate tax rate overall with the intent to drive it to zero. So that’s, that was what the objective is, and that’s what the objective will be.”

I don’t see why Kansas Democrats need to print up their own mail or radio or TV ads for November. They could just share Croft’s words far and wide. They come from a source deep inside GOP leadership, after all.

In the meantime, Republicans showed themselves utterly clueless when it came to the actual needs of Kansans.

Randy Ross, of Overland Park, is challenging Democratic Rep. Dan Osman. On a May 31 call, he responded to a question from Croft about what candidates were hearing as they knocked on doors: “Republicans, for some reason, seem to focus more on local property taxes, and I was not able to really discern the reason why they were as much focused on that.”

Gosh, I wonder why people are asking about the taxes they actually pay instead of the corporate taxes the GOP wants to cut.

I don’t mean to pick on the majority leader. If anything, we could benefit from members of both parties sharing their unvarnished thoughts and plans for the upcoming session. I’m sure Democratic bigwigs could embarrass themselves and their party if given the chance.

Because we all function in the gigantic professional wrestling arena of partisan politics, however, we’re asked to believe things that Kansas Republicans themselves clearly don’t believe.

They have no leg to stand on when it comes to fiscal responsibility. They prize partisan sniping over good policy. And they have never accepted the complete and utter collapse of Brownback’s economic experiment. Nearly every year after the plan’s 2017 repeal, GOP lawmakers have extolled some new supply-side scheme. Croft’s “objective” is the latest example.

But if the professional wrestling match is going to go on, let it go on. One of the contestants has just let his mask fall a little too low for comfort.

Human beings make mistakes.

What Wichita State University president Richard Muma did doesn’t look like a mistake to me.

Crafting the doctoral dissertation he submitted, for a degree he accepted, requires a string of deliberate choices. Those choices arguably disqualify someone who made them from holding a position of high academic leadership. That’s the takeaway from Kansas Reflector senior reporter Tim Carpenter’s investigative report on Muma, which uncovered more than 50 instances in which the leader failed to properly attribute scholars in his doctoral dissertation.

Such choices are not, as Muma suggested in a statement released Monday, “technical oversights.”

They point instead to trustworthiness and credibility.

It’s unfortunate that in responding, the president and the university have decided to cast aspersions on Kansas Reflector and refer to internal investigations that they have not made public. The response suggests that they believe they can make this story and the awkward questions it raises disappear. I don’t think Kansans or WSU students, faculty or alumni will allow that to happen.

Muma wrote “the reporter refused to share specific allegations until publishing his article today.”

In fact, Kansas Reflector clearly explained why it wanted to interview Muma and tried repeatedly over several weeks to do so.

Muma writes about a subsequent internal and external review of his dissertation “by a leading expert in plagiarism, who is unaffiliated with the university.”

WSU has not released the inquiry or the name of that leading expert. Carpenter talked to many more people, who did give their names: “Ten faculty at public and private colleges and universities said in interviews Muma’s dissertation amounted to plagiarism,” he wrote.

But hey, people have different opinions. Let’s take a break to look over at the towers of the Ivy League.

Here’s what Harvard University has to say on the topic: “In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. It doesn’t matter whether the source is a published author, another student, a website without clear authorship, a website that sells academic papers, or any other person: Taking credit for anyone else’s work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.”

Harvard also has a helpful section on paraphrasing, or using information without quotation marks in your work: “When you paraphrase, your task is to distill the source’s ideas in your own words. It’s not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest; instead, you must completely restate the ideas in the passage in your own words. If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation.”

Muma was not an undergraduate student when he wrote his dissertation. He was already a tenured professor and department chair.

Did he actually not know how to cite his work properly?

As a longtime journalist, I think about attribution a lot. I assiduously work to credit other reporters and opinion writers in my own columns. In my years as a reporter, copy editor and freelance writer, it was drilled into me — and I then drilled into others — the importance of crediting every source in every instance. As a features editor in Concord, New Hampshire, I sweated over writing briefs for the Arts and Entertainment section, making sure that my words didn’t even echo those in press releases.

If you’re asking others to trust what you do, you must prove yourself worthy of that trust.

With all that being said, let’s return to my initial sentence. Mistakes do happen. Writers might leave out attribution or forget quote marks or fail to paraphrase sufficiently. But such isolated gaffes should be promptly disclosed and corrected. Muma’s dissertation instead sat on a shelf for 20 years, while its author climbed the academic ladder.

In his statement Monday, the president writes that the “affected text consists of less than 5% of my entire dissertation.” Note the use of a definitive-sounding percentage, coming from an unreleased internal inquiry. Does Muma believe that WSU students’ work therefore can contain less than 5% of misattributed material when they turn it in? I wonder what WSU professors would have to say about that.

In the meantime, take a look at the actual evidence, as compiled by Carpenter. Decide for yourself.

I know what I believe. College presidents and academics, along with students and journalists and everyone else in the public square, should aspire to the highest standards.

Not the least they can get away with.

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.

Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com. Follow Kansas Reflector on Facebook and X.

If you read special prosecutors’ report about last year’s raid on the Marion County Record newspaper, the abuse of power by law enforcement sounds like an immaculate deception.

Officials who carted off computers and cellphones from the Record on a flimsy pretext didn’t do so out of ill will, according to Marc Bennett and Barry Wilkerson. The fact that a Marion County Record reporter had investigated Police Chief Gideon Cody? The fact that 98-year-old newspaper co-owner Joan Meyer died the day after the raid? Both dismissed as immaterial. The damage done to journalism and journalists across the United States? Simply not the their problem.

With lawsuits about the raid thick on the ground, Bennett and Wilkerson aren’t commenting further. It’s a shame, given all the loose ends and unanswered questions.

The dynamic duo did two things right. First, they lay out in exhaustive detail why Record editor and publisher Eric Meyer and reporter Phyllis Zorn committed no crimes in their everyday work of pursuing a story about restaurateur Kari Newell. But we all already knew that. Reporting on the circumstances around the raid had been clear for ages.

Second, they recommend the filing of a low-level felony charge against Cody. Unfortunately, the charge had nothing to do with the raid’s conception or execution. It instead focuses on his request to Newell that she delete text messages between the two of them.

The special prosecutors note in the 124-page report that they are not reviewing whether federal laws were broken, or whether officials might be found guilty in a civil case.

“We understand that state criminal charges might not be possible against some of them,” Meyer said yesterday. “That’s why federal civil suits will continue, why there should be public outrage over some officials’ failure to perform the most fundamental responsibilities of their positions, and why state laws allowing them to escape responsibility may need to be changed.”

Freedom of the Press Foundation advocacy director Seth Stern went even further.

“Americans across the country and the political spectrum were outraged by what Record co-owner Joan Meyer called ‘Hitler tactics,’ ” Stern said.

He added: “While we welcome the news that the former police chief who orchestrated the raid, Gideon Cody, will be criminally charged, he should’ve been charged with more than after-the-fact obstruction — the raid itself was criminal. And Cody is far from the only one at fault here. We hope he and everyone else behind the raid will also be held accountable, through the criminal courts, civil courts, and courts of public opinion. They should never work in law enforcement or government again.”

Beyond these top-line findings, the report raises a number of uncomfortable questions.

All of those who might have put a stop to Cody’s quest to raid the newspaper offered explanations as to why they simply can’t be blamed. That includes Kansas Bureau of Investigation special agent in charge Bethanie Popejoy, County Attorney Joel Ensey and Magistrate Judge Laura Viar. Their reasons appear simple and logical in isolation. But when combined, you can’t help but wonder if Cody has been left out to dry by local and state officials, eager to wash their hands of an investigation that spiraled out of control.

For example, Popejoy told investigators that Cody was “a rabid squirrel in a cage and just off doing his own thing.”

Yet she sent him a text message, quoted in the report, that reads: “I know you fell like you’re out on a limb, but there are amazing minds working behind the scenes to help you and support you. We’re here with you, so hang in there with us.”

Former Marion mayor David Mayfield was interviewed for the report, and his name crops up incidentally a handful of times. But according to a lawsuit filed by the newspaper against local officials in April, Mayfield ordered the raid and called journalists “the real villains in America.” Did investigators from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, who took on the case from the KBI, focus too closely on a small cast of characters?

Speaking of the KBI, Director Tony Mattivi has some explaining of his own to do. Two days after the raid, he said that “in order to investigate and gather facts, the KBI commonly executes search warrants on police departments, sheriff’s offices, and at city, county and state offices. We have investigated those who work at schools, churches and at all levels of public service. No one is above the law, whether a public official or a representative of the media.”

Given that his agency now disavows any knowledge of or involvement in the Marion raid, I wonder if the director wishes he had said that differently. I also wonder who advised him on the situation at the newspaper and about the wisdom of making such a statement. I asked KBI spokeswoman Melissa Underwood, who forwarded a statement that raises more questions.

It reads in part: “Even though agents did not play a role in executing the search warrants, on Sept. 19, 2023, agents attended additional training presented by the Kansas County and District Attorney Association regarding the protections and special legal considerations afforded to the press, clergy, appointed counsel, and mental health professionals.”

Good to know that while apparently no one at the KBI made any mistakes, they received additional training to ensure they continued not making any mistakes.

Kansas Bureau of Investigation director Tony Mattivi, center, said shortly after the Marion County Record raid that “no one is above the law, whether a public official or a representative of the media.” (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)

Finally, we come to the phone call. Reading the report, the special prosecutors transcribe a phone call between Officer Zach Hudlin (now the Marion police chief) and a Kansas Department of Revenue representative. Officials would use that call as justification for much that followed.

Yet media lawyer Max Kautsch told me that call shows how poorly local officials handled the case.

“The report reveals countless instances of law enforcement’s mistakes, including, crucially, Officer Hudlin ‘reach(ing) what appears to have been an honest but mistaken conclusion that journalist Phyllis Zorn had falsified her name and motives to gain access to the KDOR records,’ ” Kautsch said, quoting from the report.

“But that conclusion doesn’t hold water upon even a cursory review of the transcript of the phone call between KDOR and Hudlin, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that, at most, the KDOR was concerned about how to regulate access to its website in the future. There is literally nothing in the transcript to suggest that KDOR had told Hudlin that Zorn or anyone else had committed a crime by accessing the KDOR’s website.”

“Honest but mistaken.” That’s the key to the sleight of hand performed repeatedly by Bennett and Wilkerson. Sure, officials may have violated the U.S. Constitution and individual rights. They may have run roughshod over due process and state law. But they thought they were doing the right thing, which excuses them.

Shockingly, the special prosecutors write: “It is not a crime under Kansas law for a law enforcement officer to conduct a poor investigation and reach erroneous conclusions.”

So what is it, then?

Here are the facts. Law-enforcement officials brazenly abused their power in Marion. They did so on based on tissue-thin speculation, costing Joan Meyer’s life along the way. They sent a chilling message to journalist across the United States. Even today, the town’s journalists and residents struggle to put the pieces back together.

The special prosecutors cleared the lowest possible bar in their conclusions that no one at the Record broke the law in doing the basic work of journalism.

But they did not serve the cause of justice.

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.

Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com. Follow Kansas Reflector on Facebook and X.

Here is what I know for certain.

Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com. Follow Kansas Reflector on Facebook and X.