Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




Difference between revisions of "Kansas Rainy Day Fund Amendment (2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "> <ref" to "><ref")
m (Text replace - ". <ref " to ".<ref ")
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{noks2010}}{{tnr}}The '''Kansas Rainy Day Fund Amendment''' did not appear on the [[Kansas 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010 ballot]] in the state of [[Kansas]] as a {{lrcafull}}.<ref name=senate/>
 
{{noks2010}}{{tnr}}The '''Kansas Rainy Day Fund Amendment''' did not appear on the [[Kansas 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010 ballot]] in the state of [[Kansas]] as a {{lrcafull}}.<ref name=senate/>
  
[[Kansas Legislature|Legislature]] was mulling the possibility of placing the “rainy day” fund on a future ballot if not on a 2010 ballot.  The proposal was introduced in legislative session by Senator [[John Vratil]] and [[Laura Kelly]].  [[Governor of Kansas|Governor]] [[Mark Parkinson]] endorsed the proposed {{lrcafull}}, showing that the state was becoming a proponent of fiscal restraint. The measure would have required the state to put money in the fund when tax revenues increased more than 3 percent from one fiscal year to the next. Up to one percent would have been set aside, according to reports.  Taxes that were collected between 4 percent and 4.5 percent above previous year's tax receipts would have been placed into a debt prepayment fund. <ref name=senate> [http://www.thekansan.com/newsnow/x1487808890/Senate-panel-mulls-plan-for-rainy-day-fund ''The Kansan'', "Senate panel mulls plan for rainy day fund", February 24, 2010]</ref><ref name=passes/>
+
[[Kansas Legislature|Legislature]] was mulling the possibility of placing the “rainy day” fund on a future ballot if not on a 2010 ballot.  The proposal was introduced in legislative session by Senator [[John Vratil]] and [[Laura Kelly]].  [[Governor of Kansas|Governor]] [[Mark Parkinson]] endorsed the proposed {{lrcafull}}, showing that the state was becoming a proponent of fiscal restraint. The measure would have required the state to put money in the fund when tax revenues increased more than 3 percent from one fiscal year to the next. Up to one percent would have been set aside, according to reports.  Taxes that were collected between 4 percent and 4.5 percent above previous year's tax receipts would have been placed into a debt prepayment fund.<ref name=senate> [http://www.thekansan.com/newsnow/x1487808890/Senate-panel-mulls-plan-for-rainy-day-fund ''The Kansan'', "Senate panel mulls plan for rainy day fund", February 24, 2010]</ref><ref name=passes/>
  
 
[[Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives|House Appropriations Committee Chairman]] [[Kevin Yoder]] stated about the measure: "I think we certainly may see a constitutional amendment on the ballot. The issue continues to gain significant momentum, and this is probably something that will emerge from the legislative session." However, [[Dates of 2010 state legislative sessions|legislative session ended]] on [[BC2010#May|May 28, 2010]], without the measure being sent to the ballot.<ref> [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9D5KLQ84.htm ''Bloomberg Business Week'', "Analysis: Buzz for restraint grows in Kansas", January 11, 2010]</ref>
 
[[Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives|House Appropriations Committee Chairman]] [[Kevin Yoder]] stated about the measure: "I think we certainly may see a constitutional amendment on the ballot. The issue continues to gain significant momentum, and this is probably something that will emerge from the legislative session." However, [[Dates of 2010 state legislative sessions|legislative session ended]] on [[BC2010#May|May 28, 2010]], without the measure being sent to the ballot.<ref> [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9D5KLQ84.htm ''Bloomberg Business Week'', "Analysis: Buzz for restraint grows in Kansas", January 11, 2010]</ref>

Revision as of 14:40, 24 February 2014

Not on Ballot
Proposed allot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure did not or
will not appear on a ballot
The Kansas Rainy Day Fund Amendment did not appear on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of Kansas as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.[1]

Legislature was mulling the possibility of placing the “rainy day” fund on a future ballot if not on a 2010 ballot. The proposal was introduced in legislative session by Senator John Vratil and Laura Kelly. Governor Mark Parkinson endorsed the proposed legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, showing that the state was becoming a proponent of fiscal restraint. The measure would have required the state to put money in the fund when tax revenues increased more than 3 percent from one fiscal year to the next. Up to one percent would have been set aside, according to reports. Taxes that were collected between 4 percent and 4.5 percent above previous year's tax receipts would have been placed into a debt prepayment fund.[1][2]

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Kevin Yoder stated about the measure: "I think we certainly may see a constitutional amendment on the ballot. The issue continues to gain significant momentum, and this is probably something that will emerge from the legislative session." However, legislative session ended on May 28, 2010, without the measure being sent to the ballot.[3]

Constitutional changes

Kansas Rainy Day Fund Amendment, constitutional text changes

If enacted by Kansas voters, the measure would have amended Article XI of the Kansas Constitution by adding Section 14.[4]

Support

Legislature

Legislators who had stated their support for the measure included:[1]

Opposition

Legislature

Legislative members that were opposed to the measure included:

  • According to Representative Brenda Landwehr, "The odds are that the way we’ve done this, there will not be money in this fund to do what it’s intended to do. I like the concept, I like the idea…but it does not provide the safety or stabilization that this state needs.”[2]
  • Representative Virgil Peck, Jr. stated, "Kansas certainly needs an emergency fund but we need one that provides Kansas with a significant amount of money...we only have one shot at getting it right, in its current form it’s not right."[2]

Path to the ballot

On March 24, 2010, the Kansas House of Representatives passed the measure with a vote of 102-20, sending the proposal to the Kansas State Senate for it's approval. If the Senate had approved the ballot question, it would have been sent to the November ballot for voter approval.

A 2/3rds vote in both chambers of the Kansas State Legislature is required to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot. Kansas is one of 17 states that requires this process.[2]

See also

External links

References