The Kansas Legislature has just passed the midpoint of the session, and today we're growing together the inside perspective of a freshman senator, Democrat. Patrick Schmidt of Topeka, welcome to the podcast. Thank you so much for having me. Sherman, tell us about the glamorous life of being a Kansas legislator. Well,
I think it's a incredible privilege. I'm extremely grateful for to the people that the 19th state senate district and in Topeka le Compton and Lawrence for having me and allowing me to represent them. Glamorous isn't the first word that comes to mind. But you know, it's it's really inspiring to go into such a historic and beautiful building every day and and have a lot of good people that are there, and not just the legislators, but certainly a lot of the staff and the people that really keep that building running and humming. You know, I'm on three committees. I'm on transportation, judiciary and Kansas governmental efficiency. So that's about 33 and a half hours of committee meetings most mornings, or at least Monday through Thursday. We haven't. We've only had a couple meetings on Friday so far. And then you kind of fill the remainder of the day with kind of meetings with constituents and advocacy groups people don't want to talk to you about legislation intended on the floor too. And then we have, we've been meeting about 230 for various lengths of time on the floor to vote and discuss those bills. We're gonna
get into some discussion about some of these bills that you guys have taken up. But for the folks who maybe don't know you very well, tell us about your background and why you decided to run
Sure. I'm a before I was in the Kansas legislature, I was commissioned as a naval intelligence officer in 2017 I served on board an aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan based out Japan. So I spent a lot of time sailing in circles in the South China, sea, western Pacific. And spent some time in Bahrain with Special Forces, the Office of Naval Intelligence in Washington, DC and the Pentagon with with op now, and I first ran actually for Congress in 2022 and really felt compelled to do that after seeing the attack on the on the Capitol, compelled to do something across the street in DC at the time, correct across the street from the Capitol? Do you watch it that day in person? I did see it. Yes, you know, I was close enough to smell the tear gas and bears prey and to see the people violently assaulting law enforcement officers. And you know, I'm really saddened, especially by what we saw last month at the pardons of people that violently attacked law enforcement officers. And I think that it's a sad day. I think it's a dangerous day for the country. And I think, you know, we've been some of those people that have been pardoned have been threatening, threatening law enforcement officers since they've been pardoned and have been have been arrested for other, other crimes. I mean, we pardoned violent criminals that also had significant, many of them significant criminal backgrounds, otherwise. And I was additionally saddened that one of the members of the Senate suggested this week
that we were
perpetuating air quotes here for the people listening, perpetuating the myth of January 6, where only two people died. We're
recording this on February 28 who is the senator who said that that'd be the senator from Johnson, Senator Mike Thompson. Was that on the floor. It was on
the floor, and then, sorry, sorry to cut you off, but you know, so I felt compelled to do that. And I think there's a direct line between some of the negative outcomes we're seeing right now, certainly the people that are hurting, whether it's farmers or public employees, people who work for the VA people that work for the Department of Ag, people are doing critical work, people that work for the FAA. And the disconnect we're seeing in the Kansas legislature, where, you know, something like Medicaid expansion, which was overwhelmingly supported by what is it? 7080, right? Overwhelming majority of candidates can't even get a hearing committee. Can't even get a vote on the floor. Something that's so overwhelmingly popular, and I don't think that's very democratic, and I don't think that's what our founders, either here in Kansas or in the country, envisioned for how our government report. Is that part of why you wanted to run for the legislation? Absolutely we, we have, we have a Republican super majority in the legislature, and we, you know, whether it's on Medicaid expansion or other issues,
whether it's on abortion rights funding, public schools, education,
exactly, they will not speak up. They will not support the things that overwhelming majority of Kansans want. And it said they want for years, and that's having it's having real cost for the state. And I, you know I was talking with, want to
think that a majority of Kansans continue to overwhelmingly let people who disagree with them on these issues.
I think that we can't underestimate the impact of gerrymandering when the legislators are allowed to draw their own lines, they can create ideal outcomes for themselves that are at the same time a disservice for the voters in the state writ large. You know, I would point to a district such as mine, the 19 state senate district. It shouldn't exist. There's no reason.
Topeka kind of looks like a spokes on a wheel right now. These districts that come out of the city and into large swaths of malaria,
Moses did not come down from the mountain. With 40 senate districts in Kansas drawn exactly so to ensure only nine Democrats and 31 Republicans. These are, you know, these are wholly artificial creations that I think really distort democracy in
this state. What did you hear when you were going door to door on the campaign trail? Our senior reporter Tim carpenter went with you for one of those trips, what were you hearing when you talked to constituents?
I wish Tim, Tim hung out with me for about an hour that day. And I think the the heat index was over 110 so God bless him. In in East Topeka, you know, I think definitely one of the very top issues was, was property taxes. Even since the legislature has started, I've, I've had, I don't know how many emails and people you know that have been crying to me about the threat, you know, how concerned they are about being able to pay the property taxes, people that are on fixed income, and you know, I'm concerned, given what we're seeing out of the house, I'm concerned that we're not going to get anywhere, and that, you know, it
feels like this has happened before. You know, every time we we have an election, this is what people are upset about. Republicans aggressively campaigned on this issue, needing to cut property taxes. And then, you know, the first bill that comes through that the Senate House have actually passed, actually, the only bill so far that has actually passed and gone to the governor is one that targets trans kids. And what does that say about the priorities of the legislature right now? It's,
it's incredibly disappointed. It disappointing, and if I can just double down on the property tax issue, I was the 27th vote on the constitutional amendment for capping the valuations.
I tell us what this is, this bill
so 1603 would, as originally written, was going to cap that cap assessments at 2025 valuations, and then for every year after that, limit the increase to 3% so it wasn't actually reduction, it was just flattening the curve, slowing the increase we were
your mill levy could stay the same, but your tax bill continues to skyrocket Because the property value is going up and up
correct. But I was, I was happy when there was an amendment added to actually roll back that assessment at 2022 valuations. So it does, if it was enacted and it did pass a vote statewide, because, as required with a constitutional amendment it would lower people's property taxes.
Seems like the issue here is that everybody wants to lower property taxes, but nobody can agree on the best way to do this.
Well, I think again, going back to what's popular and what we know people want, I think there's overwhelming support statewide for 1603 for this constitutional amendment. I've spoken with my Democratic colleagues, I've spoken with the governor, I've spoken with my Republican colleagues, and they didn't all agree with me. But I'm very confident that when it comes to best outcomes for the 19th and I think best outcomes for the state, the people want to vote on this. And I think if they want to vote on it, if they want to vote themselves to lower their property taxes, we need to give them that opportunity and trust the voters.
I think the house speakers said that it's a non starter over there, that they're not going to take this up.
I haven't had a chance to discuss this with the speaker, but, you know, but
they have other ideas of how to, I think, change the assessment or lower property taxes. I think they're primarily focused on this, this mill levy for public schools that funds public schools. That's the only property tax that the state actually levies, and lowering that instead, well,
so that's a great way to defund public schools. Correct. But you know, he's right. Everyone's right that the state, the state doesn't actually, is not really the biggest part of your property tax bill. But still, what the state can do is give voters a tool to decide what they think is best for them, and 1603, gives them that tool. Right now, everyone is going through these back door tax increases because of the rising valuations. And if, if you want to take, if you want to appeal the board Tax Appeals for the average person, it's just not possible. You know, I talked to people that had, you know, here in Topeka, manufactured house in southern Topeka, getting, getting assessed at 100, 120 550,000, when they bought it for, or built it for, I don't know, $100,000 less than that recently. And they can't, they can't get any relief with the board of tax appeals. I also introduced a bill where, if you know, if they say that your house is worth way more than you think it is, and you appeal, and you appeal twice and and you lose those appeals, well, if they think it's worth 150 $200,000 they have to buy it, but we have to give voters a tool to have a check on these rising valuations that are also a backdoor tax increase that are not where they don't have any tool to go after it right now to get that fixed and people are getting taxed out of their homes,
let's talk about some of the other bills that have come up. We touched on the trans women I did a moment ago. This is, you know, bill that bans gender affirming care for anyone under the age of 18. There's some other components of that. This was contentious on the floor, right? It
was, and I would just say that this is a really hard issue, but I think what where it comes to the legislature, one of the most important things is that these are kids that are having a really hard time, and we've seen, we have enough data now in states where they've passed legislation like this, and I would, I would include the, was it SB, 71
is that the right number? I get the numbers confused as the the athlete bin,
right? No, the the pronoun bill, right, right. I think it's SB 71
when that would require school administrators educators to only use pronouns that are consistent with a child's sex at birth, and unless there's a written letter from the parent, and even then, they could continue to misgender a child if they want to correct.
These kind of bills increase this rate of suicide and suicidal ideation among already a vulnerable group of kids, right? And I think it's 80% of trans kids experience suicidal ideation. And I think over half of that attempt suicide at some point. And my question is Is, is passing these bills worth one more suicide in Kansas and certainly on the on the pronoun, Bill is taking my parents rights. It's legalizing bullying. That's why I introduced an amendment to call that Bill what it is the right to bully. Act creates carve outs where you know if you're bullying a classmate, if a teacher or administrator is bullying a student, which we've seen in Kansas, they are completely protected. They're completely protected if that kid commits suicide or attempts suicide, and I don't think that's what the legislature should be doing.
You know, I think a component of this is there are certainly Republicans in the legislature who don't know what it means to be transgender. They don't believe that transgender is a real thing, right? Sure, and you know, you're you're right about the the research on this shows that just having these debates, even if the bill didn't pass, having these debates exacerbates the mental health for kids and drives the suicide rates. You know, there are times where I've just wanted to say to two people who are promoting these bills, how many children have to kill themselves before you care? Right?
Exactly. And why? Maybe more importantly, why are we spending time on this instead of giving Kansans a solution for property taxes. Property
taxes. We go around the state doing these town hall events, and we hear all sorts of things about the water crisis that we always think about being like 10 years in the future. We've been thinking that way for probably 30 years now, and it's actually here. People. Are struggling to put food on their table, to send kids to college, to pay the mortgage on their home, just to find affordable housing, buying child care. There's this mass erosion of population in rural parts of the state struggling to get broadband internet. There's any number of issues out there that are impacting everyday Kansans. Nobody has ever said to me that the biggest concern that they have is making sure that the kids on the basketball team somebody has inspected their genitals before they were able to put the uniform on.
I'm nodding my head in violent agreement.
We'll move on. There's some conflicts of interest that come up from time to time that I think you've made note of. Yeah, I think,
you know, certainly you hear things before you enter the legislature and when you're running for office. And I mentioned on the floor my neighbor in Topeka, you know, I don't want to get him in trouble. I won't, I won't name him, but he works, I think, six days a week, probably over 50 hours a week. He was a 16 year Army veteran, blue collar job, and when I was talking to him this summer, because I would hang out on my porch before I would go knock doors and you know, Hey Patrick, and you know, he'd come over and help me work in my house. Didn't matter if the door was open or not. He'd let himself in. And a lot of times when we were talking about this, he would just it would come down to, you know, aren't those guys really in it for themselves anyway? Aren't they all just in it to make money for themselves? And I said, No, I think, you know, most of them, even if we don't agree on stuff or they're in it for the right reasons, and they still feel that way. Well, it was really disheartened in Senate Judiciary, I think it was three weeks, maybe three weeks ago now, where we had an almost an hour and a half hearing on three separate bills for for bail bondsman and for bills that would help bail bondsmen. And those were being introduced by a member of the legislature, but not a member of the Senate Judiciary that has has some Bail Bonds businesses these Senator Steven Owens out of Heston, correct? And I you know again, of all the issues that we need to be talking about, of all the problems that we could be working on and solving constructively, we're spending, I don't know how many people's time, because not just the legislators, but the staffers, the revisers, we're spending all that time in a condensed session on How to help bail bondsmen and I raised this concern, and you know, the person who was introducing that suggested that it was no different than any advocacy I might do on behalf of veterans. And I think again, that that really highlights
you don't have a financial stake in helping other veterans, right? No,
you know, making sure that the veteran crisis line works, making sure that they are able to get the care that they need at the VA here in Topeka or Leavenworth or Wichita, I think that really misunderstands anybody's advocacy on behalf of veterans. So I was really disappointed to see one of those, one of those bills, carried to the floor. And you know, this is we've had people in the legislature that have exempted themselves from votes because they didn't want the appearance of self dealing. And I congratulate those people. That was not the case here, our rules allow you to not vote where you have an interest. And so I think, you know, I think people see the corruption, and it makes them trust the system less, and it makes all of our jobs harder.
You know, there was a hearing on a bill a few days ago that would have required local government officials to recuse themselves from voting when they have a conflict of interest, but they were very clear in saying, we don't want to apply this to the legislature, just local government.
And the Senator that introduced that bill also voted against my amendment. And so, you know, I think this idea that we can't, we can't police ourselves, though, it's too hard. That's why voters don't like politicians, and I got, I got Holy hell for for my amendment, but I would do it every day of the week and twice on Sundays, because, again, we we owe it to our voters to create more trust in this system.
This is an amendment dealing directly with the conflicts of interest disclosures of that for for legislators Correct. Have you found yourself wrangling feathers even within your own caucus by being outspoken on these issues?
I would say that, especially after the results we saw in November, and certainly kind of in the groundswell and the grassroots that we've been seeing since then and in the last month. If our voters are demanding to see more of us and to know what we're doing, specifically, what we're doing to help them, if I see corruption and if I see self dealing, I'm going to call it out, and I'm not, I'm not going to let anyone stop me from doing it. And you know, I would say the same thing about property taxes. I knew that my district wanted 1603, I'm very confident on that, and I was not shy about whether it's my colleagues, whether it's the governor's office, and whether, you know, in my conversations with the Republicans, I said, you know, my district wants this, and that's that's why I'm going to do it, and that's what I owe. That's what I the 19th you
were outspoken on a bill the other day in a debate on the Senate floor that would allow police officers to sell or give the guns that they seize from people to, I guess, firearm dealers of their choice. That was a 39 to one vote, where you're the only one opposed to that. You know, 39 senators were in favor of this, but as soon as we published the story, there was just tremendous feedback from from readers, going, how are they doing this? This is outrageous. What are they thinking? This is, you know, all sorts of problems could come from this, but you're the only Senator on the floor to say, this seems like a bad idea, guys. Well,
obviously I need to work on my my powers of persuasion within the Senate, but I'm heartened that that your readers agreed with me. You know, you can imagine a position where a sheriff who's in elected office has seized seized a firearm, and this bill allows them to just give it away to a federal licensed firearms dealer. And you can imagine the perverse incentives, the loopholes, and perhaps the, you know, certainly the corruption that would come from that. And, you know, I think that bill was very specifically written. I don't think that language that transfer language sold or transferred. You know, I asked on the floor of the Senate, what does transferred mean? It means whatever you want it to mean
that this, again, was a bill from Senator Owens, who also used to run a firearm dealing business in Newton. Correct,
correct. And I think you know, and certainly, if those guns have been used in a heinous crime, if that gun was seized from MS 13, if that gun was seized from a cartel presence in Kansas, not to mention that, obviously the laws around asset forfeiture are also themselves, a little loosey goosey. You
don't have to be convicted for them to take this correct.
And you know, another, you know, just while we're while we're talking about the corruption and you know, I think that the self dealing we're seeing, seeing in some of these bills and some of the state government. I would also point to the recent I don't know if you call it a settlement, but arrangement between the attorney general's office and Macquarie energy Attorney General, Kris Kobach, after losing the case the first time, refiled and cited over $50 million in damages from Macquarie energy price gouging.
This is back in February of 2021, we had that severe cold snap. Natural gas prices went up like, you know, 5 billion times what they are supposed to be, correct, yeah. And
if you read that complaint, he's very clear, over $50 million in damages, and it hurt the people of Kansas when they needed heat, when they needed natural gas the most, during a terrible winter storm. And he settles after shaking him down for a $400,000 contribution to, I forget where the $400,000 donation? No, you know nothing else, and that's after the Attorney General's Office has spent, I think, over $22 million in private counsel Since 2022 if we're talking about governmental efficiency, if we're serious about saving money for the taxpayers, when the Attorney General's Office can't even fill their positions can't even hire. The council can't even attract the talent that they need. Why are they spending $22 million on cases that they keep losing, frivolous lawsuits in many cases, instead of serving the people of Kansas? So
the Republican leadership created the Committee on Government efficiency. This mirror is what Elon Musk is doing in Washington. It's known as coach, which rhymes with Doge, which makes it extra cool. And you're on that committee. You're you guys are being tasked with finding all of the the waste and fraud in state governments. What have you found so far?
Well, I would say I made this point in committee a few weeks ago. It doesn't quite mirror coach, because we haven't ended a program such as PEPFAR that saved the lives of over 20 million people infected with HIV or AIDS, one of just the most one of the most successful programs ever started by. By the George W Bush administration, probably one of his biggest accomplishments.
You guys have been focused more on hurting people here at home,
or, you know, I think, you know, maybe we've eliminated a few filings in the Secretary of State's office to save them a couple 100 hours
a year. But I'm being flippant there, but a lot of the work is directed at the social welfare system, right? So
we've had, you know, I feel really bad for some of the people that we've had in because, you know, like people from DCF that work really hard and have developed specific expertise in their programs and that, you know, they're asked serious questions about how those programs are administered, what they do to prevent fraud and ensure the most efficient application. And then the committee members in the majority have already reached their conclusions before they open their mouths. And we're going to spend millions of dollars duplicating triplicating, I don't know quadruplicating processes that they already do because of the conclusion that they reach before understanding the programs and again. And while we're doing that, we're allowing offices like the Attorney General to waste 10s of millions of dollars on things that we know don't work on, you know, frivolous and I would say, you know, fraudulent pretenses while we're going after underpaid state employees. It doesn't make any sense. All
of this work is being done, as you referenced a moment ago, under a condensed schedule where Republican leadership has decided to wrap up all your work by the end of March, and then come back for a couple of days in mid April, and then just be done. Right? We don't have a good answer as to why this is happening. Do you know why this is happening?
I don't have a good answer. I'm gonna, I'm gonna play the newbie card here. Still, still trying to understand the system, I would say. And maybe I might not be in the majority on this, but knowing that, you know, certainly in the minority, or you know any we're trying to stop bad stuff. And you know,
if shortened schedule might be in work in your favor,
it might not be the worst thing if, you know, if we can keep somebody run out the clock on some of these extremist ideas that they, they are always presenting, it might not be the worst thing. And, you know it, I actually think that this could be, you know, this is not a bad thing for the taxpayer. So that's, that's my minority opinion on that issue.
Should you guys be working every Friday? You're being paid to be there on Friday?
I am working this Friday. I work. I work. There are few,
few committees meeting, few debates on the floor, most, most Fridays. The calendar is totally clear in the Senate.
Again, I would point to as we've discussed a couple of times here, we know we have a pretty good idea of what the majority of Kansans want, and the majority will not listen or consider those issues, consider those viewpoints to get to better outcomes, and it's really hurting the state, you know whether it's property taxes, whether it's Medicaid expansion, whether you know just how hard it is, how expensive it is to have a baby and raise a family in Kansas, how hard it is to find childcare and afford it. Yeah, I wish we were talking about if, if we could come in on Fridays and talk about those issues and have good faith conversations. I would like to do that
we're running along here. So I'm going to jump to my last question. I'm going to give you a magic wand that you can wave and accomplish anything you want in the Senate. What? What's the first bill you take to the Senate floor?
You know I would, I think we've already had it on the Senate floor. Or would love to see it, see it past the house. I would love to see real property tax relief for Kansans. I think that would help the most people all across, you know, regardless of of location or socio economic status. That would help the most people. But we need to be having serious conversations about why our population is not growing and why so many people struggle to see their future here. And you know, again, I think it gets back to these issues where we have a pretty good understanding of what people want, and the legislature owes it to them to start delivering
Senator Patrick Schmidt, first year Democrat from Topeka, thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. You.
