Lawmakers busy this year
Procedures modernized
By MARTHA
MANGELSDORF
Kansan Staff Writer
Lawmakers during this session of the Kansas legislature have tried to further modernize antiquated procedures upheld by present statutes, have reconsidered comparatively progressive legislation on liquor by the drink and the abortion section of the Kansas Criminal Code, and taken action of comparatively more lenient nature on bills dealing with campus demonstrators and the possession of narcotics.
Despite the major breakthrough made with the Judicial Department Reform Act of 1965, additional consideration of the status of the state's judicial system and its inherent problems and outdated procedures has been necessary.
One major proposal in the House carries out recommendations of the 1968 Legislative Council to bring uniformity to procedures in courts of limited jurisdiction. The council was assisted in this complicated job by a special ad hoc committee of judges.
Courts of limited jurisdiction do not have the general jurisdiction of the higher, district courts. In this category, there are now 93 county courts and 12 counties with either city courts, magistrate courts or courts of common pleas.
Rep. Jack Euler, R-Wathena and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stated the present problem: "The way it is now a lawyer goes into one court, and they do it one way, and when he goes into another, their procedure is something else."
Euler explained this measure would standardize the jurisdiction, venue and remedies available in all these courts. It is further designed to make the procedure more compatible with the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case load problem
A growing problem in all courts is the case load, but Kansas made a major break-through four years ago with the Judicial Department Reform Act.
"This has been a real success," said Euler.
Under the Reform Act, a judicial administrator was established with the authority to shift district judges from one district to another to help ease the work load. As might be expected, the urban areas are usually the most in need of additional judges.
Private arbitration
But the Senate this session considered a bill which would further relieve loaded civil dockets in many courts. It provides for a private arbitration system outside the courtroom in the area of contract agreements. The bill, reported out of the Senate judiciary committee favorably, does not establish arbitration, because it is already part of the legal system. It merely forces two parties who have agreed to arbitration in a contract to, in fact, arbitrate.
Currently there is no legal way to force either of the parties into arbitration even though it was a part of the contract.
It would be most helpful in construction, where a contractor has allegedly failed to meet requirements in a contract. An expert arbitrator might be able to settle a dispute in a few days which would normally take up to six weeks in court.
Apr. 16
1969 KANSAN 9
The Kansas legislature, in a remarkably progressive frame of mind, heard debate on Senate concurrent resolution No. 8—Liquor by the drink—during the first week of March.
Liquor by the drink
That simple statement could not have been made during any legislative session for the past 108 years.
When Kansas wrote its liquor laws for the constitution, it adopted a dry clause. But during many of the following years, legislators with thirsty constituents brought up the subject.
In the last 10 or 15 years, liquor by the drink has been an issue during every session. Never, until this year, has the measure been passed out of committee.
The general subject of liquor did go all the way to the general election of 1948 when a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to allow package liquor was passed by the 1947 legislature. That amendment was accepted by the voters.
Now when liquor by the drink has made the initial step in the legislative process toward the statute books, a series of reactions have made a basic test of Kansans' feelings toward liquor a distinct possibility.
Voters in the 1970 election will decide whether or not to adopt the resolution which proposes a constitutional amendment to strike a sentence from the constitution which forbids the "open saloon" in Kansas.
Resolution No. 8 passed by a one-vote margin. It needed a two-thirds majority in the House or 84 votes. The measure has also passed the Senate by the bare minimum of 27 votes in the 40-member chamber.
This is considered the most decisive action on liquor by the legislature since the 1947 resolution.
But in the year when liquor by the drink has made the initial step in the legislative process toward the statute books, a series of reactions in the legislature alone seem to make the possibility of strong anti-feelings a reality.
Completely dry
First, Rep. John Bower, R-McClouth, introduced a resolution in the House which would amend the constitution and completely dry up the state. It would have prohibited the manufacture or sale of all alcoholic beverages including 3.2 per cent beer.
law signed into effect. But such legislation has passed both houses of the Texas Legislature and only awaits agreement on minor differences. California and Wisconsin also seem certain to get some law against disorders.
Frizzell said it would be permissible to submit both at the same election, citing an 1899 Nebraska Supreme Court ruling permitting it because it would be unlikely that both would be adopted.
The court further said that irreconcilible amendments would be declared to have failed, if both passed. But after consideration, the prohibition amendment failed, leaving a yes or no choice for 1970 voters only on the question of liquor by the drink.
Atty. Gen. Kent Frizzell was asked to rule on the constitutionality of submitting both measures during the same election.
A profusion of antidisruption laws have bloomed in state legislatures from the seeds of dissent planted by protesters on the nation's college campuses.
The Colorado law, which went into effect March 1, gives campus administrators and law enforcement officers specific authority to clear out obstructionists from buildings and grounds. It says faculty or outsiders may not obstruct "lawful freedom or movement on the campus" and provides penalties of up to $500 in fines and jail sentences up to a year, or both, for violators.
Antidisruption laws
In Texas, both houses of the legislature have passed slightly different versions of a bill providing penalties of a $250 fine and/or six months in jail for "disruptive" demonstrations. The bill will become law as soon as minor differences can be ironed out.
A United Press International survey showed at least 18 state legislatures considering how to quell violence and demonstrations. Colorado seems to be the only state with such a
In comparison, the Kansas legislature took a different and basically more lenient approach to the potential of campus demonstrations. E. Laurence Chalmers, KU Chancellor-elect called the action "more significant than a possible 5 to 10 per cent increase in legislative appropriations."
The legislature, killing a Senate bill and letting a similar House bill die in committee, passed a concurrent resolution directing the Board of Regents and college administrators to
Academic bankruptcy
CORAL GABLES, Fla. (UPI)
- The nation's universities are courting "academic bankruptcy" by failing to move swiftly enough toward educational reform, said Robert W. Sarnoff, president of RCA, in an address at the University of Miami.
"Higher education is supposed to complete the foundation for a continuing process of learning that extends into professional and business life," he said "Yet how can it do so if it lags behind the business world in adapting to a new environment? If a business institution reacted so lethargically to the need for new concepts its failure would be only a matter of time."
dismiss students who disrupt the campus after due process of rights and law has been observed.
Attitude toward drugs
On the same day the concurrent resolution on college demonstrators passed the Senate. A bill amending the penalty for possession of marijuana-first offenders passed also. Since then the Senate Judiciary Committee has gone one step further and
favorably reported on a bill which provides for the classification of the possession or sale of certain "hard narcotics," especially LSD, as a felony rather than a misdemeanor.
The reclassification measures indicated a separation according to potential lasting effect and possible addiction. Both measures compare favorably, at least are more lenient, than strict narcotics laws in, for example, Florida or Wyoming.
A glowing test report is a technical writer's delight.
A Dual 1009SK is a stereo record groove's delight.
A demonstration of a Dual 1009SK (with test report) is our delight.