The Kansas Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several key stages. When a bill is introduced that proposes to amend a section of the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA), the drafting process requires careful attention to ensure clarity and precision. The principle of “striking and inserting” is fundamental. This means that the language to be removed from the existing statute is typically indicated by being enclosed in strikeout font, and new language to be added is presented in italics. However, the question asks about the specific legislative action that would be taken if the intent is to entirely replace an existing section with new, unrelated provisions. In such a scenario, the drafting convention is to repeal the existing section and then enact a new section in its place. This approach clearly signals that the prior statutory language is being completely removed and a new provision is being substituted, rather than merely modifying the existing text. This distinction is crucial for maintaining the integrity and clarity of the statute book, preventing ambiguity about which provisions are in effect. The Kansas Legislative Services Act, particularly concerning the structure and amendment of statutes, guides this practice. The goal is to ensure that the legislative intent is unambiguous and that the public can readily understand the current state of the law. This method of repeal and reenactment is preferred when the new provisions bear little or no substantive relationship to the original text, signaling a complete legislative overhaul of that particular statutory provision.

The Kansas Legislature operates under a bicameral system, with bills requiring passage by both the House of Representatives and the Senate before being presented to the Governor. The process of amending a bill involves specific parliamentary procedures. When a bill is returned from the other chamber with amendments, the originating chamber has several options. One option is to concur in the amendments, which means accepting them as proposed. Another is to non-concur, which signifies disagreement. If the originating chamber non-concurs, a conference committee can be appointed to resolve the differences. If no agreement is reached, or if the conference committee report is rejected by either chamber, the bill typically fails. The question asks about the most appropriate action for the originating chamber when presented with amendments from the other chamber that fundamentally alter the bill’s intent. In such a scenario, outright rejection of the amendments and insistence on the original text, thereby forcing the other chamber to reconsider its amendments or allow the bill to die, is a strong legislative maneuver. This preserves the integrity of the original proposal and avoids accepting a substantially different piece of legislation. Therefore, non-concurrence and requesting a conference committee, or even simply rejecting the amendments, are the most fitting responses to preserve the originating chamber’s legislative intent when faced with significant, undesirable changes. The most direct way to signal disagreement and attempt to salvage the original intent is to refuse to accept the amendments.

The Kansas Legislative Procedure Act, specifically K.S.A. 75-3170, outlines the process for the Governor’s review of bills passed by the Legislature. After a bill is passed by both houses of the Kansas Legislature, it is presented to the Governor. The Governor has a period of time to act on the bill. If the Governor approves the bill, it becomes law. If the Governor vetoes the bill, it is returned to the Legislature with the Governor’s objections. The Legislature can then override the veto by a two-thirds vote in each house. If the Governor neither approves nor vetoes the bill within the specified timeframe, and the Legislature is still in session, the bill becomes law without the Governor’s signature. The critical aspect here is understanding the Governor’s options and the legislative response, particularly the duration of the Governor’s consideration period and the threshold for overriding a veto. Kansas law specifies a ten-day period (excluding Sundays) for the Governor to act on a bill when the legislature is in session. A veto override requires a two-thirds majority of the members elected to each house. Therefore, if a bill is passed by a simple majority and then vetoed, it would require 82 votes in the House of Representatives and 27 votes in the Senate to override the veto.

The Kansas Legislature operates under a bicameral system, with the House of Representatives and the Senate. The process of enacting legislation involves several stages, including introduction, committee review, floor debate, and gubernatorial action. A bill must pass both chambers in identical form before it can be presented to the Governor. If the Governor vetoes a bill, the legislature can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate. Understanding the specific rules and procedures of each chamber, such as the filing of amendments, the role of conference committees, and the distinction between engrossment and enrollment, is crucial for effective legislative drafting. For instance, a bill that passes the House with an amendment and then passes the Senate with a different amendment would require a conference committee to reconcile the differences before it could be sent to the Governor. If no agreement is reached in conference, the bill may fail. The principle of legislative supremacy, balanced by the executive veto power and the potential for legislative override, forms a core aspect of Kansas’s governmental structure. The question tests the understanding of how legislative intent is preserved and finalized through the bicameral process, particularly when amendments create divergence between the two chambers. The correct path to final passage in such a scenario involves a conference committee’s report, which must then be approved by both houses.

The Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), found in K.S.A. Chapter 77, governs the process by which state agencies in Kansas adopt, amend, and repeal administrative rules and regulations. A fundamental aspect of this process is the requirement for agencies to provide adequate public notice of proposed regulatory changes. K.S.A. 77-420 outlines the specific requirements for notice of proposed agency action, including the content and method of publication. This statute mandates that the notice must include a statement of the proposed rule, the time and place of any public hearing, and information on how interested parties can submit written comments. The Kansas Register is the official state publication for all proposed and adopted administrative rules and regulations, as well as other official state notices. Therefore, for a proposed regulation to be legally effective, it must undergo the notice period as prescribed by KAPA, which involves publication in the Kansas Register. Failure to adhere to these notice requirements can render the regulation invalid. This process ensures transparency and allows for public input, a cornerstone of administrative law.

The core principle being tested here is the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget in Kansas, as outlined in Article 11, Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution. This section mandates that no money shall be drawn from the treasury except in pursuance of appropriations made by law, and that the legislature shall make appropriations for the expenses of the government for a period not exceeding two years. Furthermore, the constitution prohibits the state from incurring debt except as provided for in specific circumstances. When considering the creation of a new state agency with ongoing operational costs, the legislature must ensure that these costs are funded through current revenues or authorized borrowing. The scenario describes an agency requiring funds for its first fiscal year. To adhere to the balanced budget principle and the prohibition against drawing from the treasury without appropriation, the legislature must first enact a specific appropriation bill that allocates funds for this new agency’s operations. This appropriation must be supported by projected revenues or be part of a deficit financing plan authorized by law. Without a specific appropriation, the agency cannot legally access state funds. Therefore, the most immediate and legally sound step is the passage of an appropriation bill. The concept of a “continuing appropriation” might be relevant for ongoing programs, but for a newly established entity, an initial, specific appropriation is the prerequisite. Similarly, while bond issuance might be considered for capital expenditures, it is not the primary mechanism for funding operational expenses of a new agency under a balanced budget mandate. A deficit spending plan would require constitutional authorization for debt, which is not implied as the sole method for funding operational costs.

The Kansas legislative drafting process emphasizes clarity, precision, and adherence to established legal principles and drafting conventions. When amending existing Kansas statutes, particularly concerning the creation of new criminal offenses or the modification of penalties, drafters must ensure that the amendment does not inadvertently repeal or conflict with other provisions. Kansas Statute § 21-5109, concerning the general principles of criminal liability, and § 21-5101, defining criminal intent, are foundational. A key consideration in drafting amendments that alter criminal statutes is the principle of statutory construction that favors interpretations that uphold the validity and intent of the legislature. If a proposed amendment to a criminal statute, for example, to increase the penalty for a specific offense, could be interpreted in a way that creates an unconstitutional ex post facto law by retroactively applying a harsher penalty to acts committed before the amendment’s effective date, the drafter must carefully craft the language to avoid this. This involves specifying an effective date for the amendment that clearly delineates when the new penalty applies. Furthermore, amendments must be drafted to integrate seamlessly with the existing statutory framework, avoiding ambiguity or the creation of conflicting legal standards. The principle of *lex posterior derogat priori* (later law repeals earlier law) is relevant, but drafters strive to avoid situations where this principle must be invoked through careful drafting to prevent unintended repeals or conflicts. The Kansas Constitution, Article 2, Section 17, mandates that “No bill shall contain more than one subject and that shall be expressed in its title.” This requires amendments to be narrowly tailored to the subject of the original act being amended or to clearly express the new subject in the title if it is a standalone bill. In this scenario, a proposed amendment to K.S.A. 21-5412, which defines the crime of battery, to include a new class of aggravated battery with a specific enhanced penalty, must be drafted to clearly define the elements of this new offense and its corresponding penalty, ensuring it does not conflict with other battery classifications or general sentencing guidelines in Kansas. The drafter must also consider if the amendment requires conforming changes to other related statutes, such as those governing sentencing or probation, to maintain internal consistency within the Kansas criminal code.

The Kansas Legislature, when drafting bills, must consider the constitutional framework and existing statutory law. Article 1, Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution establishes the legislative power. Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA) Chapter 75, Article 1, specifically addresses the legislative branch and its procedures. A fundamental principle in legislative drafting is ensuring that a bill does not violate the principle of separation of powers, as established by the U.S. Constitution and mirrored in state constitutions. This principle divides governmental authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, preventing one branch from encroaching upon the powers of another. For instance, a bill that purports to directly overturn a judicial ruling without establishing new legislative policy or providing a prospective remedy would likely violate the separation of powers by impermissibly intruding upon the judiciary’s role in interpreting and applying laws. Similarly, a bill that delegates broad, unfettered discretionary power to an executive agency without clear standards or limitations could be challenged as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. When drafting, drafters must identify potential conflicts with these foundational principles, ensuring that proposed legislation is consistent with the constitutional allocation of powers and respects the distinct functions of each branch of government. This involves careful consideration of the bill’s operative effect and its relationship to existing legal and constitutional mandates.

The Kansas Legislature, when drafting bills, must adhere to established principles of statutory construction and constitutional limitations. A key aspect of this is ensuring that legislation does not violate the principle of separation of powers, which divides governmental authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. When a legislative act purports to grant an executive agency the power to levy taxes or to exercise judicial functions, it encroaches upon the powers constitutionally vested in the legislature and the judiciary, respectively. For instance, Kansas law, like that in many states, vests the power to tax exclusively with the legislature. Similarly, the adjudication of legal disputes and the interpretation of laws are functions reserved for the courts. Therefore, a bill that attempts to delegate the authority to create a new tax or to adjudicate cases in a manner that bypasses the established judicial system would be considered unconstitutional and invalid under the separation of powers doctrine, as well as specific Kansas statutes that define these powers. Such a provision would likely be challenged and struck down by the Kansas Supreme Court. The drafting process requires careful consideration of these constitutional boundaries to ensure the enacted legislation is both effective and legally sound.

The Kansas Legislature, when drafting bills, must adhere to specific constitutional and statutory requirements to ensure the legality and enforceability of the enacted laws. One crucial aspect is the proper referencing of existing Kansas statutes. When a bill proposes to amend an existing section of the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA), the bill must clearly identify the specific KSA section being amended. Failure to do so can render the amendment ineffective or lead to legal challenges. For instance, if a bill intends to modify KSA 2023 Supp., § 75-3701, it must explicitly state this in the bill text. The process of amending statutes often involves striking out existing language and inserting new language, with the changes clearly indicated. This ensures that the legislative intent is unambiguous and that the public can easily understand what provisions are being altered. The Kansas Constitution, particularly Article 2, Section 17, mandates that amendments to statutes shall be made by reference to the section being amended, and the section as amended shall be published. This principle is foundational to legislative drafting in Kansas, ensuring clarity and preventing the unintended repeal or modification of other laws. The correct drafting practice involves identifying the precise statute number and, if applicable, the supplement year.

The core principle being tested here is the proper application of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA) concerning the effective date of administrative rules and regulations, specifically when a rule is amended. K.S.A. 77-420(a) states that an amended rule becomes effective on the date specified in the order of the adoption, which must be at least 30 days after the filing of the rule with the reviser of statutes. If no specific date is provided, the rule becomes effective on the 31st day after the filing. In this scenario, the amendment to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks regulation regarding waterfowl blind permits was adopted on July 15th. The order of adoption specified an effective date of September 1st. The rule was filed with the reviser of statutes on July 20th. Since the specified effective date of September 1st is more than 30 days after the July 20th filing, it is a valid effective date according to K.S.A. 77-420(a). The subsequent public comment period, while important for the rulemaking process, does not alter the legally established effective date once the rule has been properly adopted and filed. Therefore, the amended regulation becomes effective on September 1st.

The Kansas Legislature operates under a bicameral system. When a bill is introduced, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate in identical form. If amendments are made in one chamber that are not concurred in by the other, a conference committee is typically appointed, composed of members from both chambers, to reconcile the differences. The conference committee proposes a compromise version of the bill. This compromise bill must then be approved by both the House and the Senate without further amendment. If either chamber rejects the conference committee’s report, the bill may fail or be sent back for further negotiation, though the latter is less common. The Governor then has the option to sign the bill into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature, subject to specific timeframes and potential legislative override of a veto. The process emphasizes consensus building and the need for agreement between the two legislative bodies.

The Kansas Legislature, when drafting statutes, must adhere to principles of clarity, consistency, and constitutional compliance. A critical aspect of this process involves ensuring that new legislation does not conflict with existing laws, particularly those codified in the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA). When a new bill is introduced that modifies or repeals a portion of existing law, the drafting must precisely identify the affected sections. For instance, if a bill proposes to amend KSA 2023 Supp., § 75-3701, the drafting must clearly state this intention. The concept of “repeal and reenact” is also vital; if a section is being substantially rewritten, it is often repealed and then reenacted with the new language. This prevents ambiguity and ensures that the operative law is clear. Furthermore, legislative intent, as expressed in the bill’s language and any accompanying committee reports, guides interpretation. The principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius* (the express mention of one thing excludes all others) is a canon of construction that can be relevant. In this context, if a bill explicitly amends a specific subsection, it implies that other subsections are not intended to be altered by that particular amendment unless explicitly stated. The process also requires consideration of effective dates, which are often specified within the bill itself. Understanding the hierarchy of laws, with the Kansas Constitution being the supreme law of the state, is paramount. Any statute must be consistent with constitutional provisions.

The Kansas Legislature, when drafting bills, must adhere to specific constitutional and statutory requirements to ensure the legality and enforceability of the enacted laws. One fundamental principle is the single subject rule, often found in state constitutions, which mandates that a bill can only address one subject. This prevents “logrolling,” where unrelated provisions are bundled together to gain support. In Kansas, this principle is enshrined in Article 2, Section 2 of the Kansas Constitution. The question asks about the most appropriate action when a proposed bill contains provisions that clearly violate this single subject rule. Drafting a new bill that separates the unrelated subjects is the most legally sound and procedurally correct approach. This ensures that each subject can be debated and voted upon independently, in compliance with constitutional mandates. Other actions, such as amending the bill to remove extraneous provisions, might be attempted, but if the core subjects are fundamentally distinct and unrelated, a complete separation into distinct legislative instruments is the most robust solution to cure the constitutional defect. Simply ignoring the violation or seeking an opinion without taking corrective action would not resolve the issue.

The Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), specifically K.S.A. 77-415 et seq., governs the process by which state agencies in Kansas create, amend, and repeal administrative rules and regulations. A critical aspect of this process is the publication of proposed rules in the Kansas Register. K.S.A. 77-420 mandates that a notice of proposed agency action, including the text of the proposed rule or a summary thereof, must be published in the Kansas Register at least 30 days before the adoption of the rule. This 30-day period serves as a public comment period, allowing interested parties to review the proposal and submit their feedback to the agency. Following this period, the agency must consider all timely submitted comments before finalizing the rule. If the agency makes substantial changes to the proposed rule based on comments, a new notice and comment period may be required, depending on the nature and extent of the changes, to ensure transparency and due process. The Kansas Legislature’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations (JOCARR) also plays a significant oversight role, reviewing proposed rules for compliance with legislative intent and statutory authority before they can become effective. The process is designed to balance agency rulemaking authority with public participation and legislative oversight, ensuring that regulations are clear, necessary, and consistent with Kansas law.

The principle of germane amendments in legislative drafting, particularly within the context of Kansas law, dictates that amendments offered to a bill must be relevant to the subject matter of the bill itself. This ensures that a bill does not become a vehicle for unrelated legislation, a practice often referred to as “logrolling” or “riders.” Kansas law, like that in many other states, generally requires amendments to be germane to the original purpose of the bill. For example, if a bill concerns agricultural land use in Kansas, an amendment proposing changes to municipal zoning ordinances in Wichita would likely be considered not germane, as it introduces a subject distinct from agricultural land use. Similarly, an amendment to a bill about public education funding in Kansas that seeks to alter the penalties for certain traffic violations would also be deemed not germane. The underlying rationale is to maintain the integrity of the legislative process, allowing for focused debate and decision-making on a single, coherent subject per bill. This prevents the unintended passage of unrelated provisions and promotes transparency.

The Kansas Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several key steps, governed by constitutional provisions and legislative rules. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA), the amendment must clearly indicate the changes to be made. KSA 77-118(b) mandates that amendatory language must set forth the entire section as amended. This ensures clarity and prevents piecemeal alterations that could obscure the operative text. Furthermore, the legislative drafting manual, a key resource for understanding these processes, emphasizes the importance of using strike-through for deleted text and underlining for added text within the engrossed bill to visually represent the proposed changes. However, the final enrolled bill, which is the version presented to the Governor, will contain the clean, amended text without strike-throughs or underlines. The question asks about the *method* of indicating changes during the amendment process, specifically when proposing an amendment to a KSA section within a bill. The core principle is to present the full, revised section. Therefore, the most accurate representation of this legislative drafting practice for an amendment is to show the entire section with the proposed changes incorporated, typically through the use of specific typographical conventions that are then removed in the final version. The principle of setting forth the entire section as amended is paramount.

The Kansas Legislature, when drafting bills, must adhere to established principles of statutory construction and legislative intent. A core concept is the principle of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” which means the expression of one thing is to the exclusion of another. This principle is applied when a statute enumerates specific items or conditions, implying that items or conditions not listed are intentionally excluded. For instance, if a Kansas statute explicitly permits a specific type of governmental action only under enumerated circumstances, it is generally understood that such action is not permitted under unlisted circumstances. This aids in ensuring that legislative intent is accurately reflected in the enacted law and prevents judicial overreach in interpreting statutes beyond their plain meaning. The Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), K.S.A. Chapter 77, Subchapter 4, also governs the process of rule-making and the interpretation of agency rules, reinforcing the importance of clear and precise language in legislative drafting to avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent application of the law. Understanding these interpretive canons is crucial for drafters to produce legislation that is both effective and legally sound within the Kansas legal framework.

The principle of legislative intent is paramount in statutory interpretation. When a statute’s language is ambiguous or unclear, courts look to the legislative intent behind its enactment to determine its meaning and application. In Kansas, as in many jurisdictions, this involves examining various sources to discern what the legislature intended to achieve. These sources can include committee reports, floor debates, prior versions of the bill, and the overall purpose of the legislation. The goal is to understand the problem the legislature was trying to solve and the solution it sought to implement. If a statute’s plain language is clear and unambiguous, courts generally apply that plain meaning without delving into legislative intent, adhering to the “plain meaning rule.” However, when ambiguity exists, the process of identifying and applying legislative intent becomes critical for accurate statutory construction. This ensures that the law is applied as the legislative body intended, rather than as a court might interpret it in isolation from its historical and contextual background.

The core principle tested here is the legislative intent behind Kansas statutes concerning the appropriation of state funds, specifically how amendments can alter the scope and purpose of previously enacted appropriations. When the Kansas Legislature amends an existing appropriation bill, it is essentially modifying the legislative authorization for spending. If an amendment introduces a new purpose or significantly expands the scope of an existing appropriation without a corresponding increase in the allocated funds or a clear legislative directive to reallocate from other authorized purposes, it can create a conflict or ambiguity. The Kansas Constitution, particularly Article 2, Section 24, generally requires that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. However, appropriation bills are a common area where amendments can introduce related but distinct provisions. The question hinges on the effect of a specific amendment on the *original* legislative intent of the appropriation. If the amendment’s purpose is fundamentally different from the original bill’s intent and is not clearly tied to the existing appropriation’s framework, it might be considered an improper addition or a misapplication of funds if not explicitly authorized. In this scenario, the amendment to House Bill 2015, which originally appropriated funds for agricultural research at Kansas State University, to instead fund a new public health initiative in Wyandotte County, represents a significant departure. Without a clear indication that the original appropriation was intended to be flexible enough to encompass public health, or that funds were explicitly re-directed from the agricultural research purpose, the amendment likely exceeds the scope of the original legislative intent and could be challenged as an unauthorized use of funds or an improper legislative amendment. The legislative drafting process requires careful consideration of how amendments interact with existing statutory language and appropriations to ensure clarity and adherence to legislative intent and constitutional requirements.

The Kansas Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several stages, and understanding the implications of different amendment types is crucial for effective drafting. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA), the drafting process must clearly indicate the nature of the change. A bill that seeks to repeal a statute and reenact it with modifications is a common method to signal a comprehensive overhaul of that particular section. This approach, often referred to as a “strike and replace” or “repeal and reenact” amendment, signifies that the original language is being entirely removed and new language is being substituted. This is distinct from amendments that merely add, delete, or modify specific phrases or sentences within an existing section. The intent behind a repeal and reenact is to provide a clean slate for that statutory provision, ensuring that all prior interpretations or unintended consequences of the old language are explicitly superseded by the new text. For instance, if KSA 75-1234 currently addresses the purchasing procedures for state agencies and a new bill proposes to completely revise these procedures to incorporate modern procurement principles, a repeal and reenact of KSA 75-1234 would be the most appropriate drafting technique. This method clearly signals to all stakeholders, including other legislators, state agencies, and the public, that the entirety of the section is being rewritten, rather than just a minor adjustment. It also simplifies the legislative record by consolidating all changes into a single, new enactment of the section, avoiding a patchwork of amendments that might be difficult to interpret over time. The effective date of the new language would then be governed by the bill’s enactment clause and any specific provisions within the bill itself.

The core principle tested here is the distinction between a bill and a resolution in the context of Kansas legislative procedure, specifically concerning the creation of new law versus expressing legislative sentiment or conducting internal business. A bill, when enacted, becomes statutory law, requiring passage by both houses of the legislature and approval by the governor. Resolutions, on the other hand, do not have the force of law. They are used for various purposes, such as memorializing deceased individuals, expressing the legislature’s opinion on federal matters, or organizing legislative activities. In Kansas, concurrent resolutions require passage by both houses but are not presented to the governor, often used for matters requiring legislative agreement but not statutory effect. Simple resolutions are typically used for internal legislative matters, such as adopting rules or appointing committees, and only require passage by the house in which they are introduced. Therefore, a proposal to establish a new state agency with regulatory authority, a function that inherently requires statutory backing and would impact the public through binding rules, must be introduced as a bill. The other options describe actions or documents that do not carry the force of law or are internal procedural matters, making them unsuitable for establishing a state agency with regulatory powers.

The Kansas Legislature’s approach to statutory interpretation emphasizes the plain meaning of the text, but also considers legislative intent when the language is ambiguous. Kansas law, like that in many states, follows the principle of *ejusdem generis* when interpreting lists of items. This principle dictates that when a general word follows a list of specific words, the general word will be interpreted to include only items similar in nature to the specific words. For instance, if a statute listed “dogs, cats, birds, and other animals,” the phrase “other animals” would likely be interpreted to mean other domestic animals, not wild animals, due to the specific preceding examples. Furthermore, Kansas statutes often contain severability clauses. A severability clause, typically found at the end of a legislative act, states that if any provision of the act is found to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions will still be given effect. This prevents an entire law from being struck down due to a single problematic section. The legislative intent behind a severability clause is to preserve as much of the enacted legislation as possible. Therefore, when a court finds a specific provision of a Kansas act unconstitutional, the severability clause would guide the court to uphold the remainder of the act, assuming the unconstitutional part is not essential to the overall purpose of the law.

The Kansas Legislature’s approach to amending existing statutes involves a structured process to ensure clarity, consistency, and adherence to legal principles. When drafting an amendment, a legislative drafter must identify the precise section of the Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA) that requires modification. The process typically involves referencing the KSA number and the specific subsection or paragraph. For instance, if a change is needed to a provision concerning agricultural land valuation, the drafter would locate the relevant KSA section, such as KSA 79-1476, and then pinpoint the exact part to be altered. The amendment language must clearly indicate what is being added, deleted, or changed. This often involves using specific drafting conventions, like striking through text to be deleted and underlining text to be inserted, or by clearly stating the intent of the amendment. A key consideration is ensuring that the amendment does not create unintended conflicts with other statutes or constitutional provisions. This requires a thorough understanding of the existing legal framework in Kansas. The drafter must also consider the effective date of the amendment and any necessary transitional provisions. The goal is to produce legislation that is unambiguous and effectively implements the policy intent of the enacting body, in this case, the Kansas Legislature.

The core principle tested here is the application of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), specifically K.S.A. 77-421, concerning the judicial review of agency actions. This statute outlines the specific requirements for filing a petition for judicial review. A critical element is the timeliness of the filing. K.S.A. 77-421(a) mandates that a petition for judicial review must be filed within 30 days after the agency serves the final order upon the petitioner. In this scenario, the Kansas Department of Revenue issued its final order on March 15th. Therefore, the 30-day period commences on March 16th. Counting 30 days from March 16th brings us to April 14th. The filing on April 15th falls outside this statutory window. Consequently, the district court would likely dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing. This emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to procedural deadlines in legislative drafting and administrative law, as failure to comply can result in the loss of the right to seek judicial review, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. The drafting of legislation must account for such procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and finality in administrative decisions.

The Kansas Legislature’s process for enacting laws involves several stages, each with specific procedural requirements. When a bill is introduced, it typically goes through committee review, floor debate, and voting in both the House and the Senate. If a bill passes one chamber, it is then sent to the other for a similar process. Discrepancies between the House and Senate versions of a bill necessitate a conference committee to reconcile the differences. The conference committee’s report, if agreed upon by both chambers, is then presented for a final vote. If a bill is vetoed by the Governor, the legislature has the option to override the veto. A veto override in Kansas requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate. This supermajority threshold is a critical procedural hurdle designed to ensure broad consensus for overriding executive disapproval. Therefore, if a bill is vetoed, the subsequent legislative action to enact it into law without the Governor’s signature requires this specific supermajority in both chambers.

The Kansas Legislature’s Rules of the House and Senate, along with K.S.A. 75-702, govern the process of bill introduction and referral. When a bill is introduced, it is assigned a number and referred to the appropriate standing committee by the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate, respectively. This referral is crucial as it determines the initial committee that will consider the bill’s substance, hold hearings, and potentially amend it. The presiding officer’s decision is based on the bill’s subject matter and the committee’s jurisdiction, as outlined in legislative rules. For example, a bill concerning agricultural policy would typically be referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources or the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. The rules also allow for referral to more than one committee if the subject matter is broad or overlaps with multiple areas of legislative responsibility. The initial referral sets the stage for the bill’s journey through the legislative process, influencing its chances of passage.

The Kansas Legislature, when drafting bills, must adhere to established principles of statutory construction and drafting clarity to ensure the enacted laws are understandable and enforceable. A core principle is the avoidance of ambiguity. When a statute’s language is unclear, courts often resort to various canons of construction to ascertain legislative intent. One such canon is the “plain meaning rule,” which dictates that if the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, it should be given its ordinary and natural meaning. However, if ambiguity exists, courts may look to legislative history, including committee reports and debates, to understand the purpose and intent behind the provision. Another crucial aspect of drafting is the principle of internal consistency. A bill should not contain provisions that contradict each other. Inconsistencies can lead to confusion and legal challenges. When drafting, legislative counsel must also consider the relationship between a proposed bill and existing Kansas statutes. Amendments should be drafted to integrate seamlessly with the current statutory framework, avoiding unintended repeals or conflicts. The question asks about the primary consideration when a drafted bill contains language that could be interpreted in multiple ways. This scenario directly invokes the concept of statutory ambiguity. The goal of legislative drafting is to eliminate such ambiguity. If ambiguity is present, the legislative intent becomes paramount in resolving it. While clarity and consistency are goals, the *primary* consideration when ambiguity is discovered is how to resolve that ambiguity to reflect the legislature’s original intent. This often involves revisiting the drafting process to clarify the language, or, if the bill is already in committee, seeking amendments to remove the ambiguity. The most direct way to address discovered ambiguity during the drafting phase is to ensure the language accurately reflects the intended meaning, which is synonymous with clarifying the intent.

The Kansas Legislature, when drafting bills, must adhere to established principles of statutory construction and legislative procedure to ensure clarity, enforceability, and constitutional validity. A key aspect of this is understanding how to properly define terms within a bill to avoid ambiguity. The Kansas Statutory Construction Act, particularly K.S.A. 77-201, provides guidance on the interpretation of statutes. When a term is defined within a bill, that definition generally controls the meaning of the term throughout the entire act, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. The principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius* (the express mention of one thing excludes all others) is also relevant, meaning that if a statute enumerates specific items, it is presumed to exclude items not enumerated. In drafting, it is crucial to ensure that definitions are precise and do not inadvertently create loopholes or unintended consequences. For instance, if a bill defines “motor vehicle” to include only cars and trucks, it would exclude motorcycles and buses unless specifically added. The process of legislative drafting involves anticipating potential interpretations and clarifying any ambiguities through explicit definitions or specific exclusions. The legislative intent behind a provision, as gleaned from the plain language of the statute and its legislative history, is paramount in its interpretation by the courts. Therefore, a drafter must meticulously consider the scope and impact of every defined term.

The core principle being tested is the application of the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA) regarding the effective date of rules and regulations, specifically in relation to legislative review and potential disapproval. K.S.A. 77-420 outlines the process for submitting rules to the Legislature for review. Once a rule is submitted, K.S.A. 77-421 details the timeframe for legislative action. If the Legislature, through the joint committee on administrative rules and regulations (or its successor), files a resolution of disapproval, the rule does not take effect. However, if no such resolution is filed within the prescribed period, the rule becomes effective on the date specified in the notice of the proposed rule, provided that date is after the expiration of the legislative review period. In this scenario, the rule was published on March 1st, with an intended effective date of April 15th. The submission to the legislature occurred on March 15th. The statutory review period, as per K.S.A. 77-421, is typically 30 days after submission for the committee to act, or if the legislature is in session, until the end of the session or a specific deadline within the session. Assuming the legislative session allows for a full review period and no disapproval resolution was filed by April 14th, the rule would become effective on its stated effective date. The critical element is that the effective date must be after the review period concludes without disapproval. Since April 15th is after the presumed end of the review period, the rule becomes effective on that date.