Kansas
Kansas senator’s property tax plan ‘doesn’t work’
A proposal centered on replacing property taxes with sales tax revenue generated from a retail surcharge was met with skepticism during a Senate committee hearing.
A public hearing for Senate Bill 488, dubbed the “Kansas Property Tax Freedom Act of 2026,” produced muddled information on the actual legislation itself after the bill’s author — Sen. Michael Murphy, R-Sylvia, conceded that his plan “as written doesn’t work.”
Murphy on March 10 pinned blame for the lack of clarity on a software program that “assumed some things that it shouldn’t have assumed” when crunching numbers related to revenue estimates.
A fiscal note estimated abolishing property taxes would eliminate about $7.9 billion in state and local tax revenue in the first full year of implementation. Meanwhile, the increased sales tax intended to offset the property tax elimination would only raise about $1.5 billion, according to Kansas Department of Revenue estimates.
Murphy, whose district includes Hutchinson, told the committee he planned to press forward in his quest to bring “meaningful” property tax relief to Kansans. He added that he has “scenarios that will work,” while declining to elaborate.
“But that’s not for right now,” he said.
With a packed Statehouse audience serving as a backdrop, Murphy’s explanation came as a surprise to committee chair Sen. Caryn Tyson, R-Parker.
“You can’t drop a bombshell and say that ‘there’s other things that we could do without giving the committee your ideas,” Tyson said, as Murphy departed the lectern.
Under Murphy’s plan, the bill would cut property taxes by 50% in 2026 and 75% in 2027 by placing caps on mill levies. By 2028, property taxes would be fully eliminated and replaced with surcharge fees on retail purchases as established by the “Fair Share Purchase Surcharge.” The plan would ultimately need to be approved by voters via a constitutional amendment.
A flat surcharge fee of $1.60 would be applied to purchases of $20 or more. For transactions less than $20, a surcharge of 7.6% of the purchase price is assessed. An exemption carveout would apply to SNAP-eligible grocery items, prescription medications, medical devices, motor fuel, mortgage payments, utility services and K-12 tuition.
Lawmakers leave door ajar for SB 488
Lawmakers said they are still open to hearing more about Murphy’s plan if he can come up with revenue estimates related to the surcharge fees. Specifically, they need to know if the lost property tax revenue is being adequately replaced.
“The data was not there,” Tyson told The Capital-Journal, adding, “It’s a conversation we absolutely should look at.” Sen. Jeff Klemp, R-Lansing, told Murphy that his proposal is “not ready for prime time,” but appreciated the effort.
It doesn’t appear as though Murphy’s plan is viewed by lawmakers as a serious contender, as Tyson said she’s laser-focused on other tax relief packages.
- The Senate on Feb. 25 passed SCR 1616, a proposed constitutional amendment to cap appraisal growth. It is similar to a plan the Senate passed last year that was rejected by the House.
- The House on Feb. 26 passed HB 2745, a bill that would restrict local governments from spending above a cap and allow protest petitions to block higher taxes. It is somewhat similar to a plan the House passed last year that stalled in the Senate.
Kansas lawmakers from both parties used the promise of property tax relief as a primary campaign platform during the 2024 election cycle, but continue to come up empty on the pledge.
Tyson is now sounding the alarm.
“We need to get those passed into legislation,” Tyson said of SCR 1616 and HB 2745. “If we don’t, we will go home another year, and property taxpayers in Kansas will not see relief.”
Lawmakers, stakeholders debate Murphy’s proposal
David Trabert, CEO of the Kansas Policy Institute, provided neutral testimony while also dismissing the legislation as beyond repairable this session. Trabert asserted that the data used to determine the surcharge fees doesn’t exist.
“You need to know how many transactions take place in order to back into those numbers,” he said. “And the Department of Revenue doesn’t have it.”
Trabert also discussed an aspect of the bill involving the distribution of revenue derived from the surcharge fees. According to Murphy’s blueprint, 48% would be earmarked for school districts, and 35% would go to local taxing entities.
Trabert contended that the distribution is problematic because it’s greater than what school districts are currently receiving by around 3%, while cities and counties would be receiving a drastically reduced slice of the revenue pie.
“The distribution to cities and counties of 35% is 20 points below what they’re actually getting,” he said. “So you would be dramatically underfunding city government.”
Trabert also noted that the bill would force lawmakers to devise a “completely new school finance system because property tax is baked into it.”
Sen. Tim Shallenburger, R-Baxter Springs, suggested that the surcharge fees needed to be “a little fairer.”
“It seems to be higher on the smaller purchases, so we could probably put another tier in there,” he said. “But I think people prefer sales tax to property tax.”
Rep. Adam Smith, R-Weskan, said he’s studied the plan, and all roads lead to “the math.”
“Is the surcharge adequate to replace the local property tax revenue?” asked Smith, who chairs the House tax committee. “And if it only brings in half of what we need, what does that mean for cities, schools, and local entities that rely on property tax?”
Former Republican Rep. Carrie Barth testified in support of SB 488, saying “people are being taxed out of their homes.” Property tax, Barth said, is the top issue in a state “that is not very affordable — for both businesses, as well as people who own homes and property.”
Tyson postponed a corresponding hearing for SCR 1621, which could have set the stage for a constitutional amendment prohibiting state and local taxing entities from levying property taxes.
Matt Resnick can be reached at mattres2121@gmail.com.
The Kansas Lottery offers several draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at June 28, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Pick 3 numbers from June 28 drawing
Midday: 1-9-7
Evening: 0-7-3
Check Pick 3 payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning 2 By 2 numbers from June 28 drawing
Red Balls: 05-19, White Balls: 25-26
Check 2 By 2 payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from June 28 drawing
04-11-31-54-58, Bonus: 03
Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.
Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results
Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your lottery prize
All Kansas Lottery retailers will redeem prizes up to $599. For prizes over $599, winners can submit winning tickets through the mail or in person at select Kansas Lottery offices.
By mail, send a winner claim form and your signed lottery ticket to:
Kansas Lottery Headquarters
128 N Kansas Avenue
Topeka, KS 66603-3638
(785) 296-5700
To submit in person, sign the back of your ticket, fill out a claim form, and deliver the form along with your signed lottery ticket to Kansas Lottery headquarters. 128 N Kansas Avenue, Topeka, KS 66603-3638, (785) 296-5700. Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. This office can cash prizes of any amount.
Check previous winning numbers and payouts at Kansas Lottery.
When are the Kansas Lottery drawings held?
- Powerball: 9:59 p.m. CT Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
- Mega Millions: 10 p.m. CT Tuesday and Friday.
- Pick 3 Midday/Evening: 1:10 p.m. and 9:10 p.m. CT daily.
- 2 By 2: 9:30 p.m. CT daily.
- Lucky for Life: 9:38 p.m. CT daily.
- Lotto America: 9:15 p.m. CT Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
- Super Kansas Cash: 9:10 p.m. CT Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
- Millionaire for Life: 10:15 p.m. CT daily.
This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Kansas editor. You can send feedback using this form.
TOPEKA, Kan. (KCTV) – The U.S. Department of Justice is suing Kansas over a law giving undocumented immigrants in-state college tuition rates.
But Kansas Governor Laura Kelly is not going down without a fight. She says she filed a motion to intervene in the case the same day.
Kelly argues that Attorney General Kris Kobach is refusing to defend a law that Kansans – and their elected representatives – chose to keep.
What the Federal Government Is Arguing
The DOJ’s complaint, filed Wednesday, June 24, targets Kansas Statute 76-731a – a law signed by then-Governor Kathleen Sebelius on May 20, 2004, that took effect July 1 of that year.
The law allows certain undocumented immigrants who attend Kansas high schools for at least three years and graduate, or earn a GED in Kansas, to qualify for in-state tuition at Kansas colleges and universities.
The law provides that the undocumented immigrant file an affidavit stating they have applied or will apply to legalize their immigration status.
Federal prosecutors argue that the arrangement violates federal law – specifically, part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
The federal law bars states from offering in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants unless that same benefit is available to all U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live.
The DOJ says Kansas is giving undocumented immigrants a tuition break that out-of-state American citizens cannot get.
The Tuition Gap
For the 2025-2026 school year, the Kansas Board of Regents revealed that in-state tuition per semester at Kansas universities ranged from around $2,450 at Fort Hays State to $5,650 at the University of Kansas.
The Regents noted that out-of-state students paid dramatically more – from $6,930 at Emporia State to $15,000 at KU per semester.
Between 2010 and 2021 alone, the complaint states that at least 5,140 undocumented immigrants used the Kansas law to enroll at state postsecondary institutions.
The Unusual Twist: AG Kobach Agreed to Settle – Immediately
Hours after the DOJ filed its complaint, justice officials indicated that AG Kris Kobach jointly filed a motion for entry of consent judgment, asking the court to:
- Declare the law as preempted by federal law and therefore invalid
- Issue a permanent injunction barring Kansas and all of its officers, employees and agents from enforcing the law
Both sides said they agreed they would each bear their own legal costs.
The speed of the agreement – filed the same day as the lawsuit – is at the center of Governor Kelly’s objection.
Kobach had already telegraphed his position: in Attorney General Opinion 2026-5, issued Feb. 10, 202, he concluded the Kansas law was preempted by federal law and invalid, though it remained in effect at the time.
Governor Kelly Steps In
Kelly wasted no time. She said her office filed a motion to intervene the same day, arguing Kobach’s willingness to immediately agree to a consent judgment amounts to a “backdoor” attempt to legislate through courts rather than through the democratic process.
“Without any substantive briefing, this is a collaborative attempt by DOJ and Attorney General Kobach to backdoor-legislate through non-adversarial litigation,” the motion states.
Kelly’s legal team argues she has both the constitutional authority and the legal obligation to step in.
Under the Kansas Constitution, the governor is “responsible for the enforcement of the laws of this state.”
Her attorneys also cited K.S.A. 75-108, a state statute that allows the governor to hire outside counsel when the attorney general is “interested adversely to the state” – which, they argue, Kobach is.
The Legislative Context
The fight over this law did not start with the federal lawsuit.
During the 2026 Kansas legislative session, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 254, which would have repealed the law in question. Kelly vetoed it.
The Legislature did not override her veto – meaning the law remained intact through the democratic process just months before the DOJ sued.
Kelly’s motion argues that allowing a consent judgment without full legal briefing “disregards the democratic process by which the Kansas state law was enacted.”
What Kelly Is Saying
In a statement, Kelly framed the issue around the students affected – many of whom were brought to the U.S. as children:
What Federal Officials Are Saying
DOJ officials framed the lawsuit as part of a broader national effort to enforce federal immigration law and protect American citizens from what they call preferential treatment for undocumented immigrants.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward pointed to Kansas’s history with the law, arguing the state has long favored undocumented immigrants over American citizens in higher education.
“For decades, the Kansas legislature gave preferential treatment to illegal aliens over American citizens,” Woodward said. “We encourage all States to follow the commonsense correction of Attorney General Kobach, ceasing any policy that rewards illegal entry into our nation with educational opportunities not available to U.S. citizens.”
The DOJ noted that the Kansas lawsuit is part of a pattern of legal wins it claims it has secured in similar cases across the country.
Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said the department has no plans to stop.
“Kansas’s unconstitutional and un-American laws should never have been passed in the first place and are prohibited by federal law,” Shumate added. “The Department of Justice has won on this exact issue in Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Nebraska, and we will take this fight to any states that fail to put American citizens first.”
The swift agreement between the DOJ and Kobach drew praise from federal prosecutors in Kansas.
U.S. Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser for the District of Kansas called it a model of cooperation between state and federal leaders.
“This proposed consent decree demonstrates the quality of partnership between Kansas state leaders and the Department of Justice for the shared purpose of ensuring that federal tax dollars are not used to discriminate against Kansas’s lawful citizens,” Kriegshauser concluded.
The Broader National Picture
The Kansas lawsuit is the 10th in a series of DOJ actions targeting state in-state tuition laws for undocumented immigrants.
The department said it has already secured favorable court orders in Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Nebraska. Lawsuits against Illinois, Minnesota, Virginia, California and New Jersey remain pending.
However, the legal landscape is not entirely settled.
A federal judge in Minnesota ruled in March 2026 that the same federal statute does not preempt Minnesota’s similar in-state tuition law, finding that Minnesota’s law does not determine eligibility on the basis of residency in the same way.
The DOJ has appealed that ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals – the same circuit that covers Kansas.
What Happens Next
The consent judgment proposed by the DOJ and Kobach still requires court approval.
Governor Kelly’s motion to intervene, if granted, would give her office the ability to argue against the consent judgment and force full legal briefing on the merits of the case.
The court has not yet ruled on Kelly’s motion.
If the judge allows her to intervene, the case could become a full legal battle – pitting the federal government and the state’s own attorney general against the governor’s office over a law that has been on the books for more than 20 years.
Copyright 2026 KCTV. All rights reserved.
-
Delaware48 seconds ago6 things to know about Delaware actor Ryan Phillippe
-
Florida7 minutes agoMothers gather in Florida to honor children lost to gun violence
-
Georgia11 minutes ago
Georgia Lottery Cash 3, Cash 4 results for June 28, 2026
-
Hawaii16 minutes agoSuspect sought in Kailua drive-by shooting
-
Idaho23 minutes agoSevere weather postpones 16th annual Idaho Patriot Thunder Ride
-
Illinois26 minutes agoIllinois Lottery Pick 3, Pick 4 results for June 28, 2026
-
Indiana31 minutes agoVisitors slam Trump’s ‘snitch signs’ at Indiana national parks
-
Iowa38 minutes agoVote: Class 1A Iowa High School Baseball Midseason Player Of The Year
