the Kansas legislature is in full swing now we have a sense of what they're up to. But there's a lot more that they could be doing. With us today on the Kansas reflector podcast is Micah Qubic, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, to address some of the issues that are top of mind for the ACLU. And welcome, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks so much for having me.
I should say Welcome back to Kansas. You. You were in Florida for a while, right? I was yeah, I spent a few years down there. What Why did you leave Kansas? And why did you come back
care a lot about the issues. And so it was really a great opportunity to go and work on civil rights and civil liberties issues in a very important state where there are some particularly acute threats. Some people in particular who pose particularly acute threats to civil liberties and civil rights down in Florida, and came back because this is really home and missed. Kansas missed friends and family here, miss the people of Kansas, the good sort of Midwestern common sense and Midwestern nice and glad to be back here doing the work for people that I care about.
I'm sure all of Kansas in the legislature joins us in welcoming you back. Thank you. So now that now that you're here, you had a chance to look at what the legislature has kind of fired out of the gate and you guys have some priorities of your own. One of the issues that I think would be of concern to would be LGBTQ rights. This is something the ACLU has as kind of stood up for year after year. But we've seen the past couple of years legislation that would ban trans athletes from participating in school activities. We also have another bill that's been pre filed this year. We don't know if it'll get a hearing or not. But Senate bill that would ban gender affirming care for for transgender people in Kansas. I think it's called the end childhood mutilation acts. And just the name of a bill like that suggests the battle that you have ahead, isn't it?
Oh, it absolutely does. And it's intentionally incendiary. It's intentionally misleading, intentionally creates an environment of harassment and fear and frankly, bullying, really vulnerable kids. That's who we're talking about here, really vulnerable kids, whether it's on the athletic side, or in gender affirming care, you're talking about kids who already face enough challenges and their lives as it is are trying to find their way in the world. And here you have a group of adults of supposed presumed leaders who have decided that the best way for them to spend their time to exert their precious leadership resources is to bully children. I think it's really a shame. I think that we will absolutely fight back against it as we have and prior years, and I feel a high degree of confidence, that we'll be able to turn back those attacks as we have the last couple of years as they've come. They've been very difficult battles. But I think most Kansans, when they look out on the broad prairie have things that we could be working on. This is not at the top of any of their list, and in general think that adults should spend their time focusing on things other than bullying children.
It does seem to be a political strategy here to make this an issue that is top of mind for Kansans. And I think part of it is just the recognition that most Kansans, certainly most legislators are just kind of ignorant of what it means to be transgender. Is that one of the ways that you can fight back on this just by taking legislators aside and trying to not just appeal to their better self, but to educate them on on these issues? Yeah, I
think that's a good point, right. I mean, I think for many people, this is an issue that they've not spent a lot of time thinking about. Many of them may not realize that they already know transgender, Kansas, and almost everyone knows a transgender person, they just may not know that they know a transgender person, a transgender Kansan, and I think when folks become aware of the issue a little bit better, they're certainly more supportive and more enthusiastic about equality and about equity. I also think that there are some folks in the legislature, who although they're not very well informed about what it means to be a transgender person, have no interest in being more informed because they want to deny the very existence of trans people at all. And it is our responsibility to make sure that trans Kansans are not erased from our state story from our state's history and from our state's present. And so we're gonna make sure that we do that as well. And to your point, you know, I think they have tried and tried and tried and tried and tried and tried to make this an issue that is top of mind this kind of persecution to be an issue. that's top of mind. And they just keep on failing, because most folks don't really sympathize with the idea that we should be persecuting folks based on their identity, and especially not kids. And I think if you look out on the elections that that just passed a few months ago, not just in Kansas, but around the country, there were forces who tried to make that an issue that was top of mind. And it just failed spectacularly. For them, folks, just to not go along with that theme, they did not go along with that. Instead, they chose different priorities instead. And I hope that our legislators take that as a cue.
We've seen the the ban on trans athletes past the last two sessions, I think we could expect that it will get some attention again this year. But that one failed, really, because of Governor Laura Kelly's veto. And just a couple of brave Republicans in the House who are no longer there. When we looked at the docking Institute, pulling on a number of issues, this was one of the issues where majority of Kansans did say, yes, we need to ban trans athletes. You know, there's a, again, a misunderstanding of what the issue is, but this fear that boys out there, we'll just declare themselves to be girls so that they can accelerate girl sports, which is not what it means to be transgender. But that's the the general, you know, understanding that the public has. So, you know, I just look at this, and I think it is politically advantageous for Republicans to continue to press this issue, as long as the polling is in their favor.
You know, I think it is certainly right that the last couple of years, this failed because of a veto from the governor. And I would hope that if a bill comes to her desk again, that she vetoes it again, and I have confidence that we'll be able to pull together a coalition of folks across the political and ideological spectrum to sustain such a veto. That's what happened the last couple of years. And although some of the names and faces have changed a bit, in the meantime, I feel pretty confident that we will be able to pull together a coalition to do the right thing on this. I think that when folks learn more about the issue and realize that that sort of scare tactic, that deliberate misinformation that has been put out there about what the issue is and what the experience of trans Kansans is like that they recoil from it when when they know the truth. And I would also note that, regardless of what the polling says, the political behavior of folks shows that it's actually not that advantageous for them, because folks may remember that there was a candidate for governor who spent millions of dollars on television, trying to turn this into an issue. And that individual was governor today.
It you know, Ken's insecure about a lot of other things. More than it seems, I do want to point out that this is an issue with the the trans athletes issue. We're really talking about one to five students in any given school year, who would be impacted by this bill, in terms of being restricted from activities, but it does have a psychological impact on on on kids damages, their mental health, just talking about it,
and sends a signal to other folks who are not transgender or LGBT, or I remember the LGBT community otherwise, right, it sends a really broad signal about who matters, who counts who's included and who's valued. And we should never be devaluing anyone.
And the ACLU of Kansas has actually brought in somebody to lobby just specifically on this issue, this session, I think, for the first time.
That's why we have a legal fellow who's dedicated to this issue, not just in the legislature and advocacy, but also in litigation and legal work as well. So a very broad sort of set of strategies all around LGBT equality.
Very good. One of the other issues we should talk about is reproductive health care. There was a big votes last year on the constitutional amendment that I think shocked to the Republicans who have kind of made this their bread and butter for many, many years. And we would expect that they will come back with a vengeance trying to find some other way of restricting health care for for women who wants to terminate their pregnancy in Kansas. Where do you think those battle lines are being drawn?
Well, I think the Extremis have been very clear from the get go that they, although they accepted the vote in terms of not challenging its veracity with it with a few notable exceptions, who sought a recount they generally accepted the vote as being one full of integrity but have contested the outcome nonetheless, and upset that they will find ways to seek to undermine it. You know, the newly sworn in Attorney General today, Kris Kobach, talked for quite a bit during the fall, about finding ways to circumvent the vote of the people to find ways to circumvent the Supreme Court, and I think it certainly will possible even likely that the legislature entertain several bills that violate the state constitutional ruling handed out by the Kansas Supreme Court a few years ago. And we'll see where those go. They have been very clear about the fact that they do not the extremists on this issue do not respect the court's ruling. And they disagree with the voice of the people on the issue. And rather than simply saying, oh, perhaps we made a mistake, rather than engaging in a period of deep self reflection about what went wrong. They have instead said, full speed ahead. We're going to do everything we can to circumvent this. I think that that will fail, because again, I think that cooler heads will prevail in the legislature. And it may be a tight, tight squeeze. But I think it's possible that again, a cross ideological bipartisan coalition emerges to defeat those sorts of efforts. But it certainly won't be for lack of trying, and it certainly won't be because the extremists simply say, Okay, we concede.
So you'll be keeping an eye on any new restrictions that that come up. There are a number of restrictions in place that I think, have been questioned for a long time. And now that we have this Kansas Supreme Court ruling and the result of that constitutional amendment votes, I think there are a lot of people looking at some of these laws and saying, you know, should women be subjected subjected to, you know, this state sponsored propaganda, the idea that you have to look at a sonogram image before you can proceed, wait 24 hours, all of that stuff? Are there existing laws that you're looking at as well with concern?
Yeah, you know, I think Kansas has had many, many, many, many restrictions on reproductive health care for a very long time. And, you know, there's this one about telemedicine that's making its way through the courts now, where there's an injunction about it. There are any number of restrictions that have been passed, including the ones around, suppose pregnancy counseling, that's the sort of state sponsored propaganda that you were talking about. There are still restrictions around admitting privileges and sort of procedural steps for providers of care. And I think all of those things are ones that reproductive health care providers will be thinking about whether they should take action against or not. And I certainly think that in the meantime, folks in the legislature are not going to let those go and are going to continue to try and press for additional restrictions as well, including on things like medication, abortion.
ACLU of Kansas has been for many years now involved in in litigation over restrictions on voting participating in elections, a number of laws passed, actually in recent years that make it a little harder to vote with an advanced ballots. There's talk now in the legislature actually abandoning dropboxes some other ideas floating out there, what what do you what do you see is your priorities this year on voting rights?
Well, I really think that voting rights is the crux of so many of the battles that we face, I say a lot that democracy itself is being challenged in the country right now. And democracy means not just voting rights. But as really an idea, the idea that everyone counts that everyone matters, that everyone is part of the community that everyone is part of a social compact together. And all of the attacks that we've already mentioned, are all attacks on democracy, too, because each one of those things is about saying that someone doesn't matter that someone doesn't count that someone is excluded from the community less than in some particular way. And voting rights is, I think, the clearest manifestation of that because all of the attacks on voting rights are really designed to make it harder for particular groups of people, usually communities of color, lower income communities, younger people, especially to participate in democracy. We've certainly seen over the last 20 years a sustained, concerted, deeply dishonest, deeply disingenuous campaign to attack the right to vote. Kansas has been on the very front lines of that battle for a number of years, especially because of policies pursued by the former secretary of state, including for a time the single most restrictive law and voter registration that existed anywhere in the country since the days of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. So
we're talking about Kris Kobach, who is just a sworn in as the new attorney general. He was the Secretary of State for two terms and convinced the legislature including then Senator Laura Kelly, to support a law that required you to have a proof of proof of citizenship a First Certificate to show up and register to vote was kind of a a plan to freeze the voter rolls in place and keep the young people off for for a while,
and it succeeded for a time until it was struck down by the strikes and more than
30,000 Kansans who attempted to register were denied, even though they were legally should have been legally allowed to try to strive 1.1
and five new voter registrations in the state was held in suspense, because of this particular restriction. And so even though that restriction is gone, the idea that there should be additional restrictions on the vote has not gone away with it. And so to your point, there has been talk this year about already about getting rid of drop boxes, making it more difficult for folks to submit ballots by mail, tinkering with the early voting period. All of these things are proposals that have been made, I hope that they do not succeed last year, there were no additional attacks on voting rights, despite a number of bills that were cobbled together into a Frankenstein's monster of a bill by the end of the year,
that always happens at the end of the session.
And so it didn't, it did not advance last year, my hope is that it will not this year as well, because we really should be making it easier for eligible folks to participate in American democracy. We believe that democracy is strongest when more people can participate rather than less. We believe that the vote is a right, not a privilege, and we should treat it as such. And we also know that when we make it easier for folks to participate, they want to do so all of this stuff that you hear, Oh, the voters are apathetic, oh, people don't care. Bippity boppity boo. Amazingly, when we reduce the barriers to participation, folks actually do participate at higher levels, which tells you that all of that stuff about apathy is really just a cover story, for keeping barriers in place when they shouldn't be. Let's get rid of the barriers. Let's make it easier for people to participate in their democracy. And we'll all benefit as a result.
I'm curious about the climate around this and this myth of voter fraud that, you know, Kris Kobach, had perpetuated for so long. You know, he kind of planted a seed with the the Trump administration served on an advisory board that found no fraud, but had the president's ear for a while. There was actually when I first became a reporter in 2018, the first assignment I had was to go cover the trial, where it became very clear that the type of voter fraud that's political figures like to talk about and what people into a frenzy about just doesn't exist. I mean, it's, you know, the number of of times where somebody votes who shouldn't have voted as you know, single digits over many years, out of millions of votes cast. Or it's the kind of fraud we saw with former US representative who lied about where he lived when he went to vote, you know, that's, you know, real, the type of fraud that we actually see. People vote in two different states, that sort of thing. But we don't have masses of people who are not citizens lining up to vote, we don't have dead people voting. We don't have a general on the second floor of an embassy in Italy, hijacking satellites to alter machines. This was an actual theory that was presented to legislatures last session. But when we saw this past election cycle, the Secretary of State who is a Republican Scott Schwab, rejected these conspiracy theories, he defeated a primary challenger who embrace these conspiracy theories, and shrugged, kind of went on the offensive against people even in his own party who, who tried to perpetuate this stuff. And he he ended up I think, with a lot more votes than even some of the other statewide candidates. So when we look at the session now, and he, you know, he's proposed some, you know, serious ideas for, for streamlining the kind of bureaucracy, part of the of the elections. Do we think that the climate is cooled at least a little bit from what we've seen the past couple of years? Are we in better shape now?
Well, you know, I think, first of all, the Secretary of State Scott fog should be commended for the actions that he's taken. I certainly don't always agree with him. At the ACLU. We certainly don't always agree with his office, we're embroiled in litigation with them on a regular basis. But at the same time, I think that he has approached the office in a professional way and takes the mechanics of election administration very seriously. And I think that's a commendable thing in a public servant. And it shows in the lower number of complaints that we've seen about the way elections have been administered, especially this last time and 2022. That's it. I'm not sure that the broader I'm not sure that the environment around the folks who are opposed to voting as a right has cooled that much. I think that is not a sentiment that is shared by the broader populace. Again, I think most folks want our elections to be secure, but also inclusive. They actually do believe that voting is a right they don't believe, as some of the folks who are the most arduous in arguing for restrictions. Those folks really do believe that the vote is a privilege that should belong to a few rather than to the many I think among the folks for whom the idea of a stolen election election fraud is a salient thing. I'm not convinced that there aren't or has cooled any, and I expect them to come. guns blazing this session as well. I think a number of the folks who have been most vigorous on this issue and trying to push for unnecessary, ineffective and frankly, wrong restrictions have already signaled that they're going to do the same again this year, whether they get a broader hearing from other members of the legislature who are not as deeply embroiled in those conspiracies and misinformation. We'll see. But I certainly think the Zealots on this issue, are just as zealous as they were last year and the year before, and are part and parcel of a broader movement around the country. That certainly has not been discouraged in the way it needs to be at the national level.
I think of redistricting as part of the the voting rights, kind of as a broader issue of voter rights. And this was a battle that you guys joined last year. And in last, I think it was a surprise to some of the Kansas Supreme Court said that it is okay to have a partisan gerrymander in Kansas. And for those who don't know, they, the legislature with the US congressional districts carved up Kansas City to split the votes, taking a primarily black and Hispanic part of Kansas City out of St. David's district, put it into a different district and took part of Lawrence and dumped it into the first district which spreads all the way to the Colorado border. So we have this silly looking map. Now. There was also some redistricting problems with how they handled legislative districts. But this is a fight that's not necessarily over. Maybe it's a Hail Mary, but the ACLU has appealed this case with with the others who are involved in this litigation to the US Supreme Court. What do you think the chances are there?
Well, you know, I think trying to project what the US Supreme Court is going to do is usually a fool's errand. They get so many appeals to them so many petitions, they take very few of them. And even the ones that they do take, it's sometimes very difficult to predict what they're going to do. In this particular case, we thought it was the right thing to do, because the judgement of the Kansas Supreme Court on the broader issue of redistricting aside, there was one particular point of law that we thought was very important to get clarified about when you can contest a racial gerrymander. So this, the issue with redistricting was both a partisan gerrymander and a racial gerrymander. That's what the district court found as well before he was overturned by the Kansas Supreme Court. And the Kansas Supreme Court made a particular finding of law about when you could bring a case involving a racial gerrymander and intentional racial discrimination that we think is not wholly consistent with the governing federal case law on the subject. And so we thought it was really important to take it to the Supreme Court, especially around that one particular issue to get clarity there. Because otherwise, it would make it much, much more difficult for anyone. To bring a case involving racial gerrymandering in the future, you would have to have a district that is already comprised of a majority of people of color. And of course, in Kansas, although it is a state that is growing more diverse by the day, at this point, it would be demographically impossible for any congressional district in the state to have a majority made up of people of color. And so we took the case to the Supreme Court in the hopes of reiterating the federal case law that you don't have to have a district that is a majority made up of people of color, you have to show that communities of color are having their voice disempowered, and you have to be able to show that there is some sort of discrimination happening, which is a different, but important standard.
We'll have to see if the court takes an interest in this. One last thing to talk about on in terms of elections. I think the ACLU of Kansas formed a political action committee for the first time this year to to put out some mailers in AI and I think some select districts What Why did you take that step and how effective was it?
We did so the ACLU of Kansas seeded a new pack called Kansas united for civil liberties, not a conventional pack that normally a pack of donates to candidates endorses candidates. This pack wasn't that kind of pack. Instead, it was a committee that was dedicated to educating voters about the issues to comparing objectively There are records and positions of the candidates on key civil liberties and civil rights issues. And we thought that was important to do, because we think that a lot of voters care very deeply about civil liberties and civil rights, but don't always have those issues highlighted for them. Because candidates and others talk about so many of the other issues, and all those other issues are important too. But we thought it was vitally important that someone be educating voters about the differences that existed between candidates, especially this time around on reproductive freedom and voting rights, because there were very, very stark differences between the candidates on those issues. And so we picked for state legislative districts in Johnson County for State House districts, to educate voters about the differences between the candidates on reproductive freedom and voting rights. We invested significantly and those places have invested over a quarter of a million dollars and those four state legislative districts, which is a significant amount, given how small the districts are. And in three of those four state legislative districts, the seat was won by a person who was aligned with civil liberties and civil rights and defeated a person who was not those candidates deserve enormous credit for the hard work that they did. Because you don't win unless you do the hard work. But I absolutely believe that the investment that Kansans united for civil liberties made in those districts helped make a difference because it reminded folks about issues that they cared about, you know, we didn't have to persuade people to support reproductive freedom and voting rights. But we were reminded folks that those issues were very much on the ballot along with the names of the candidates that the issues themselves were on the ballot. And I would note that those three seats in Johnson County, those were the only three seats in the entire state, that flipped from someone who opposed civil liberties, to one to someone who supported them. There were two other seats that went the other way. But of the seats that flipped from someone who was opposed to civil liberties to someone who supported them. All three of them were ones where the pack made a significant investment.
There's another arena here where I know that you have a a lot of interests, the ACLU is always involved with criminal justice reform issues. What are the priorities for you this year?
Yeah. So you know, I think one of the great things about this issue is that it is proof that you need not be a member of a particular political party to support civil liberties and civil rights and to support reform. Because criminal justice reform, criminal legal reform is an area where there is a broad bipartisan cross ideological consensus and opportunity. And some of the greatest champions for reform in the Kansas legislature are diehard conservatives are Republicans are leaders and the Republican caucus. And so it is great evidence that civil liberties and civil rights need not be a partisan issue. I think this year, we're especially looking at making progress on fees and fines in the juvenile justice system. And at medical marijuana, on fees and fines in the juvenile justice system. A lot of folks don't know, the right now we charge young people for the burden of going through the criminal legal system, we charged them fees and fines, hundreds 1000s of dollars just for going through the system. That really makes no sense at all. Because you know, as the father of a teenager, children do not pay bills, this is not something that they do. And so the idea that children and that is who we're talking about really kids 12 1314 years old, should pay 1000s of dollars is absurd. It's ineffective, it does nothing to promote community safety, and instead creates a lifelong debt obligation for these children and their families, something that lingers with them for a very long time. Beyond that, if we really believe that the criminal legal system is something that makes us safer, if we really want to invest in a system that makes us safer, we should not be putting the burden of paying for it on children, we should instead be taking that burden as a society. If we don't actually believe the system is making us safer, then that's a different subject entirely. Right. But if we actually believed any of the things that we said about it, we would be willing to pay for it rather than charging children in ways that stick with them for a long time.
And that price tag is why there's such bipartisan support for this or our last podcast, guests were from the Kansas chamber and they they were very much saying some of the same things. I think it is an issue that unites people on the far left and the far right. But often it gets bogged down with these arguments about being tough on crime, basically, how do you get past the those kinds of hurdles, get past the you know, whatever roadblocks, the police sloppy wants to put in place and get this over the line.
You know, I think it really is just about showing people that the system is not what they necessarily imagined it to be. A lot of folks know someone in their own lives who's gone through the system in one way or the other. And they usually think that person got a raw deal in one way or another. And it's when they're reminded of that person and their own life, and reminded that that person situation is not an anomaly, but rather than norm, that they're much more likely to entertain reform. I think there are folks across the spectrum who see different reasons why the system is a failure, why it's not keeping us as safe as it could. And I think the reality is that none of these proposals, none of these policies actually make us safer. In fact, communities are safer when there are people living in them. Communities are safer when there are people who are able to go about their daily lives, with their families, at their jobs, engaging in daily life. That's what makes a community strong, vibrant and safe. And the policies that we have now are ones that disrupt families that cost too much and are entirely punitive, rather than affording folks a second chance. And I think there are a lot of folks a lot of Kansans, who will have a second chance for themselves for their friends for their families. And when they're reminded about that, that false narrative that this is necessary for for crime is disproven, and we'll go out the window.
You mentioned medical marijuana, I think people may be surprised to see that this is a civil rights issue.
Yeah, and it? Absolutely, I mean, first of all, I think being able to access care that your doctor prescribes is, in fact, a civil rights and civil liberties issue. But beyond that, we know there are enormous racial disparities in the system. We know that African Americans especially are exponentially more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced harshly for marijuana crimes in particular and drug crimes more broadly than our white people. And that's the case even though all of the research shows that African Americans actually use marijuana at lower rates than white people do. It is a deeply deeply racially discriminatory system. And medical marijuana is one piece of that system. It's not the only piece there are other steps that we need to take. But it's certainly a step that we can take now and where there is, again, support across party lines, Bill has moved forward a couple times already and inches a little closer every time. And now that we are surrounded literally on all sides by other states that have in the case of Nebraska and Oklahoma Medical Marijuana and in the case of Colorado and Missouri with both medical and recreational marijuana. The idea that Kansas would remain steadfast and refusing to do the right thing would be steadfast and being one of only three states in the entire country to have no provisions at all for medical marijuana is silly. It's absurd. It's time to turn the page.
This is another one of those issues like medical or excuse me, like Medicaid expansion or access to reproductive health rates. We know that a strong majority of Kansans maybe as many as 75 or 80% support legalizing marijuana in some form. We'll have to see if it gets through the legislature this year. Thank you for joining us on The Kansas reflector podcast. Thanks for having me. Glad to be here.
