2026 Legislative Session Wrap Up

As we worked through housing and tenant issues this session, I examined how our current system handles eviction records and whether it gives people a fair opportunity to move forward after a difficult situation. Under current Kansas law, if someone has an eviction on their record, it can follow them indefinitely with no clear path to have it removed. In many ways, it is treated with the same level of permanence as some of the most serious criminal offenses.

House Bill 2357 allows tenants to request expungement of an eviction record, but only after meeting clear conditions. The bill outlines these stipulations: three years must pass, any financial obligations must be satisfied, and the individual cannot have additional eviction judgments during that time. Those are reasonable expectations that ensure this is a second chance for people who have demonstrated responsibility.

At the same time, the bill protects landlords. They are given the opportunity to object to an expungement request, and the courts can review the situation before making a decision. That accountability piece was important to me. Another part of the bill I supported is the requirement that courts consider mediation in eviction cases.

For families in our community, this bill is about fairness and opportunity. It recognizes that people can go through tough times, but it also expects them to take responsibility before receiving relief. It does not excuse past actions, but it does allow someone to move forward after they have done what is required.

I supported House Bill 2333, known as the Kansas Intellectual Rights and Knowledge Act, or the KIRK Act, which is named in recognition of Charlie Kirk and the broader conversation around free speech on college campuses.

In some cases across the country, colleges have limited where and how students can express their views. That runs counter to the basic principle that public universities should be places where ideas can be shared openly and respectfully. This bill clarifies that outdoor areas on public college campuses are public forums, meaning students and others can engage in lawful, non-commercial expressive activity as long as they are not disrupting the normal operations of the institution. I believe that is a commonsense standard that protects both free expression and the ability of schools to function.

It also prevents universities from creating so called “free speech zones” that restrict expression to only certain parts of campus. Instead, schools must allow expression more broadly, while still being able to enforce reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that are neutral and clearly defined. That balance is important. It protects speech without creating unnecessary disruption.

Another important piece of this bill is accountability. If a public institution violates these protections, individuals have the ability to take legal action, and the Attorney General can also step in.  The bill also requires universities to be more transparent by publishing their free expression policies and reporting any incidents. I believe transparency helps ensure these protections are taken seriously and consistently applied.

Additionally, the legislation expands protections for student organizations, making sure they are not denied recognition or benefits simply because of their political or ideological beliefs.

I’ve often heard the concern that some students come to school facing challenges outside the classroom, including not having consistent access to meals. That is a real concern, but the solution shouldn’t be more top-down government control. Instead, we should make sure local school boards have the information and flexibility they need to make the right decisions for their communities.

This bill focuses on the Community Eligibility Provision, a federal program that allows eligible schools to provide meals to students at no cost using federal dollars. Rather than forcing schools into the program, the bill simply requires local school boards to evaluate whether participation makes sense for their district.

If a district has a high percentage of students already qualifying for free meals, the board must take a closer look at the program and determine if it is a good fit. I supported this because it promotes transparency and accountability without taking decision making authority away from local leaders.

Just as important, the bill includes a clear financial hardship provision. If participating in the program would create a financial burden for the district, the local board can opt out. That decision must be made publicly, which ensures accountability to the community while still protecting local control.

I supported House Bill 2402 because it is a measured and responsible approach. It does not expand government, it does not mandate participation, and it keeps decisions where they belong, at the local level.

One of the core responsibilities of government is to protect public safety and to make sure our laws are clear, consistent, and enforceable. I’ve heard increasing concerns from law enforcement about situations where their ability to do their jobs safely is compromised. In high stress environments like accident scenes or emergency calls, even small distractions can create real danger. This type of scenario is why I supported creating a clear standard that people should not approach within 25’ of a first responder when doing so creates a safety risk. Obviously it would be hard for anyone to take out a measuring tape in the heat of the moment, but the idea is that we define a “halo” that is at least not arbitrary.

This bill also addresses cooperation between local and federal law enforcement, particularly when it comes to immigration detainers. I supported this approach because it creates clear rules and accountability. It ensures that when sheriffs act on these requests, there is proper documentation and a defined legal process behind it. The bill also includes provisions that provide legal representation and liability protections when officers are acting in good faith. That balance is important. We expect law enforcement to do their jobs, and we should make sure they are supported when they follow the law.

About nine years ago, the Kansas legislature passed legislation that restructured the juvenile justice system to default more young kids to CINC cases/foster care system and away from the criminal justice system. But some young people need more structure than what is available in the community, but they do not necessarily belong in the most restrictive settings. This bill helps fill that gap by creating additional placement options like youth residential facilities, which provide a structured environment focused on accountability and rehabilitation.

This bill focuses on early intervention and behavioral health. By expanding access to juvenile stabilization services, we are making sure that young people in crisis can get help sooner, before situations escalate further. These centers are designed to support not just the child, but the family as well, with services that address the root causes of behavior.

I believe this balanced approach is the right one. It combines accountability with opportunity, making sure there are consequences for serious actions while also investing in solutions that can change the trajectory of a young person’s life.

I voted yes on HB 2365 to add Kratom (7-OH) to the Schedule I list of drugs in Kansas. There were cases made for and against this change of statute and there are good and bad uses for this drug. We heard individuals that use the natural iteration of Kratom (a plant originally from southeast Asia) to relieve chronic pain. However, the synthetic version of Kratom, 7-OH has exploded in usage in recent years and is now sold at gas stations, convenience stores, and vape shops with no age restrictions. 7-OH is an unregulated, synthetically manufactured opioid that has filled the vacuum for addictive substances since the flow of fentanyl has been cut off with the southern border being closed. It is currently being sold over-the-counter with no FDA regulation, approval, or oversight. The synthetic version is up to 10 times more powerful than morphine.

There is the desire to revisit this issue and further differentiate between the naturally occurring compound and the synthetic version that is so noxious and pervasive. The technology exists to test for each separately (differing levels of mitragynine) and we discussed regulating the natural iteration. I believe this will be an ongoing conversation. But for now, I voted in support of HB 2365 because of its rampant abuses we are seeing right now.

My youth group years through my church offered me wide exposure to the criminal justice system across the country because we visited and ministered to people behind bars, from Cook County Jail in Chicago to men’s prisons in Louisiana and women’s prisons in Texas. I’ve had a heart for prison ministries and recidivism programs since then, so I was excited to vote on HB 2596 to fund a pilot program at the Hutchinson Correctional Facility. It will allow partnerships to build modular homes while providing participants with nationally recognized construction training and certifications. That means individuals can leave the system with real, in demand skills that translate directly into jobs.

One of the challenges we continue to face across Kansas is access to affordable housing. At the same time, we have individuals in our correctional system who need opportunities to learn skills, earn a paycheck, and prepare for a successful transition back into society. I saw this bill as a practical way to address both of those issues at the same time. Private partners are required to cover all costs associated with the project, and the state must charge market rates for both facility use and wages. This ensures the program does not undercut private industry or shift costs onto taxpayers.

Depending on where you live, some of you may face overly burdensome local regulations that make it difficult to simply start a small business out of your home. For many families, a home-based business is not just a side project. It is a way to earn extra income, support their household, or take the first step toward building something bigger. We can remove some of those unnecessary hurdles while still maintaining reasonable protections for neighborhoods.

This bill creates a clear framework for what is called a no-impact home-based business. These are businesses that operate entirely within a home, do not increase traffic or parking issues, and are not disruptive to the surrounding area. In other words, if your business is not bothering your neighbors, it should not be buried in red tape.

I supported this approach because it puts trust back in individuals and limits government overreach. The bill prevents cities from requiring costly permits or forcing someone to rezone their home just to run a small, low-impact business. At the same time, it still allows local governments to enforce basic health, safety, and nuisance regulations. We can support economic opportunity while still protecting the character of our communities.

This is especially meaningful for rural areas, where people often have more space and unique opportunities to operate small businesses from their property. The bill recognizes that difference and ensures those Kansans are not held back by one size fits all rules.

One of the biggest frustrations I’ve heard from our veterans (and those that serve in the Legislature with me) is navigating the benefits system. They are often approached by private companies offering to help file claims, sometimes for significant fees. At the same time, there are also trusted Veteran Service Organizations that provide this assistance at no cost. I believe veterans should have the freedom to choose what works best for them, but they also deserve clear protections and transparency in that process.

This bill puts guardrails in place. It limits how much companies can charge for assisting with veterans benefits claims and requires that fees be tied to actual results. It also prohibits upfront or nonrefundable fees and prevents anyone from guaranteeing outcomes or promising specific benefit levels, which helps protect veterans from misleading claims.

Just as important, this legislation makes it clear that veterans still have options. If someone wants to use a private service and is willing to pay for that assistance, they can do so within these protections. But if they would rather not pay, they can continue to use Veteran Service Organizations that provide these services for free. I believe that choice matters, and this bill preserves it.

Beyond benefits assistance, this legislation also expands opportunities for those who are currently serving. It updates veteran hiring preferences to include members of the National Guard, reserves, and military spouses. I supported this because it recognizes the contributions of those still serving and helps connect them to job opportunities here in Kansas.

For our community, this bill is about respect and responsibility. It respects the service of our veterans and military families by expanding opportunities and honoring their sacrifice, while also taking a responsible approach to protecting them from potential abuse.