Kansas
Severe storms expected Wednesday in NE Kansas; high winds, tornadoes possible
Severe storms, which may include high winds and tornadoes, are expected Wednesday in north-central and northeast Kansas, forecasters say.
The National Weather Service has upgraded from “slight” to “enhanced” the possibility those areas will see severe storms, which forecasters say will be most likely between 4 and 10 p.m.
“Thunderstorms will develop along a cold front as it moves southeast across the area today,” the weather service said in a graphic posted on the website of its Topeka office. “The potential hazards with the storms include damaging winds, a few tornadoes and hail.”
Forecasters have high confidence that north-central and northeast Kansas will see thunderstorms, that website said.
Storms may start as early as 11 a.m. over north-central Kansas, with the severe weather threat there beginning about 1 p.m., it said.
“Damaging winds are the most likely hazard,” the website said. “But there may be enough ingredients for a strong tornado or two.”
The site added: “The risk for tornadoes is a low probability/high impact setup in that it’s not ideal, but there are enough ingredients to be on alert. Storms are most likely going to move together in a line and the tornado concern is for spin-ups with the line of storms.”
Forecasters predicted Wednesday’s threat would be medium to high for high winds, medium for tornadoes, low to medium for hail and low for flooding.
Contact Tim Hrenchir at threnchir@gannett.com or 785-213-5934.
Kansas
Kansas lawmakers have new bill banning gender marker changes on ID
Watch AG Kris Kobach testify on driver’s license gender marker bill
Watch AG Kris Kobach testify on driver’s license gender marker bill
Kansas lawmakers have new legislation under consideration to ban gender marker changes on state identification.
The introduction of House Bill 2426 comes after the Kansas Supreme Court denied a petition for review filed by Attorney General Kris Kobach following a Kansas Court of Appeals decision.
That move meant the Kansas Department of Revenue could resume gender marker changes on driver’s licenses and other state ID cards for transgender people, despite Kobach’s assertion that a 2023 law known as Senate Bill 180 banned such changes.
That law, also known as the Women’s Bill of Rights, strictly defines sex based on reproductive anatomy at birth. The text of the law is a little over one page and lacks details.
Jason Long, a senior assistant revisor of statutes, told lawmakers that HB 2426 would “address the issues” raised by the courts with SB 180.
While SB 180 never made explicit reference to driver’s licenses or gender, Kobach told lawmakers the court rulings “defeated the intent of SB 180” and the law now “does nothing, it has no practical effect on anything.”
“So what this bill does is remove the wiggle room that the Kansas Court of Appeals seized upon,” he said.
The new bill would define gender to mean biological sex at birth for purposes of statutory construction. It would also direct the Revenue Department to invalidate licenses that have already had gender marker changes approved. A similar directive would be given to the Office of Vital Statistics to invalidate any birth certificates that have been changed.
With its first committee hearing of 2026, the House Judiciary Committee held a bill hearing on HB 2426 on Jan. 13. The bill was sponsored by the committee chair, Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, who said the committee was “starting off with a bang” and predicted a hearing “filled with emotion.” Two Capitol Police officers were posted in the room.
A day before the meeting, the agenda item was listed on the House calendar as an “informational discussion on driver’s license gender marker policy.” At some point, it was converted into a bill hearing.
House Minority Leader Brandon Woodard, D-Lenexa, told reporters there was than 24 hours notice to the public and even less time for people to submit testimony.
“They do those sorts of things in an attempt to shield,” Woodard said. “They know that the public’s not on the side with them.”
“We’re only doing this because Kobach keeps losing in court,” he said of the bill.
None of the written testimony was immediately available to attendees or on the Legislature’s website. A committee assistant indicated there was so much opposition testimony that it couldn’t be uploaded before the hearing because it is “a huge undertaking.”
In addition to Kobach, there were a handful of other supporters. Several opponents testified in person, including some who are transgender Kansans or have relatives who are.
“I’m sure there will be people who want to debate the merits of SB 180 all over again, and that’s not really my job,” Kobach said.
Humphries said there is no fiscal note quantifying the cost of the bill because staff “haven’t had time” to produce one.
New bill would address ambiguity in law
Kobach said the new bill “will remove any ambiguity” in the law.
“Courts oftentimes see ambiguity in statutes, and no statute is perfect, and sometimes you can’t remove ambiguity because of the nature of the subject matter,” Kobach said. “But in this particular case, the Court of Appeals, I believe, twisted the ambiguity to create a meaning that renders the law a dead letter.”
As part of their June 2025 ruling, the appellate judges said SB 180 “can reasonably be interpreted to be limited to ‘sex’ to the exclusion of ‘gender.’” The three-judge panel was comprised of Chief Judge Sarah Warner and Judges Stephen Hill and Karen Arnold-Burger.
Kobach said it was a “mistake” for the Court of Appeals to say gender and sex have different meanings. Kobach argued the terms are interchangeable under state law.
The judges said in their ruling “the Legislature could have included a definition of ‘gender’” in SB 180, or in separate statutes on driver’s licenses they could have written a definition where gender meant biological sex assigned at birth.
The judges said lawmakers may have a variety of reasons for the words they choose to use.
“We simply cannot assume that the Legislature sloppily and hastily adopted legislation with a complete lack of awareness of the context … we must and do give our committed public servants in the Legislature more credit than that,” they said in their ruling.
During oral arguments in January 2025, the judges and attorneys suggested lawmakers could have done a better job writing the first-in-the-nation law based on model legislation. Even Anthony Powell, who is Kobach’s solicitor general, said, “The Legislature didn’t consider every angle.”
Kobach apparently disagrees.
“I think the Legislature did a fine job in passing it, and absent judicial activism, we wouldn’t be standing here right now,” Kobach said.
He accused the appellate court of stepping “out of its judicial role and acts in a legislative capacity and says, we are going to act to change or add meaning to a statute.”
The judges indicated they believe they were doing the opposite.
“It is not the court’s role to ‘rewrite legislation,’” the judges said in their ruling. “It is only by rewriting this statute that we arrive at the conclusion propounded by the AG, that they are identical.”
During oral arguments, judges and attorneys openly suggested lawmakers could amend the law to address the issue of interpreting ambiguous laws.
“There’s nothing to prevent the Legislature tomorrow from introducing legislation to define gender in the way they’re arguing it should be defined, the same as they have defined sex,” Arnold-Burger said during oral arguments.
Lawmakers in the 2025 session didn’t heed that advice. A year later, such legislation has been introduced. Kobach said the bill’s clear definitions “will end the litigation, and we will no longer be spending hundreds of attorney man hours on this and clogging the court’s docket as well with this very litigious issue.”
What Republican and Democratic leaders say about bill’s priority
Republican leadership was asked why the bill is a priority during a Jan. 13 gaggle with reporters.
“Because it’s a vital statistic,” said Senate President Ty Masterson, R-Andover. “If you can change something on your birth certificate, why can’t you change the date?”
“Why can’t you change your age?” asked House Speaker Dan Hawkins, R-Wichita.
“Those are statistics of factual record, and they just need to be what they are,” Masterson said. “That’ll go quickly. I don’t even think you’ll see a lot of controversy in the Legislature on it.”
He did say he expects it to be a partisan issue.
“I don’t know why they keep supporting the boogeyman this much, but for whatever reason, Kris Kobach loses in court so much that they have to change the law so they can actually get a win in the Supreme Court,” said Woodard, the House minority leader, during a Jan. 15 gaggle with reporters.
Senate Minority Leader Dinah Sykes, D-Lenexa, said, “It is not a top issue for Kansans.”
Woodard said Republicans pushing the bill so early in session shows, “Their priority is focused on culture war issues.”
“This is two years in a row of their top priority being bashing on trans people in Kansas, which does nothing to make it more affordable to live, work or raise a family here,” he said.
Jason Alatidd is a Statehouse reporter for The Topeka Capital-Journal. He can be reached by email at jalatidd@usatodayco.com. Follow him on X @Jason_Alatidd.
Kansas
Kansas Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Kelly v. Kobach case
Kansas AG Kris Kobach and Gov. Laura Kelly’s attorney on Supreme Court
Hear from Kansas AG Kris Kobach and Gov. Laura Kelly’s attorney after Supreme Court case
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach and the legal team for Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly presented oral arguments to the Supreme Court in a case that could decide if the governor has authority to join legislation on her office’s behalf.
Kelly sued Kobach in October after Kobach filed an amicus brief, a legal document offering information or experience, in a lawsuit Kelly signed on as a party to. Kelly joined the suit, which is against the Trump administration over its collection of data from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but Kobach’s brief said Kelly doesn’t have the right to enter a lawsuit representing Kansas.
“This case is about whether the Governor can intrude into the area where the Kansas Constitution says the Attorney General is the official who’s in charge, namely, litigating in court on behalf of Kansans,” Kobach told reporters after court adjourned.
The governor’s position in court is that she has a right to participate in legislation if it pertains to her duties as governor.
“What we’re simply asking for is that the governor be allowed to have a voice in litigation when the matters or the issues affect the executive branch and the agencies she’s in charge of,” said Stephen McAllister, an attorney for Kelly.
Kobach said the distinction between representing the state and representing the interest of Kansas’s executive agencies is usually nonexistent.
“They are trying to say there’s a difference between representing the interests of my agency and representing the state of Kansas. Ninety-nine percent of the time, there is no difference,” Kobach said.
The scope of Kelly’s authority was a point of contention. At the start of the hearing, McAllister conceded that their legal briefs “may not have always been completely clear.”
Kobach told the justices that the governor’s offices is retreating from the scope in its briefs, and they previously said they could direct the attorney general to sue and that they may litigate on behalf of the state.
Justices peppered both sides with questions throughout arguments. Justice Dan Biles questioned whether it could lead to too much power vested in the attorney general.
“Let’s assume the Department of Justice sues the Secretary of the (Kansas) Department of Children and Families in federal court over this SNAP business. Are you saying that you have the power as attorney general to go into that courtroom and confess judgment?” Biles asked.
They asked the governor’s counsel whether the matter is a “live controversy,” or an actual ongoing dispute rather than a hypothetical one.
“Would you concede that it is possible, hypothetically in cases, that the governor of any state in his or her official capacity would not have standing, it just depends on what’s the subject of the lawsuit,” Justice Caleb Stegall said. “I don’t see anything particularly nefarious about a different party saying this party over here doesn’t have standing.”
Biles questioned whether the matter couldn’t be resolved elsewhere.
“Is it really that big of a deal,” he said. “I don’t understand how we can have a Quo Warranto action that say the attorney general made a bad legal argument. And shouldn’t be able to make that legal argument,”
There’s no timeline for when the Kansas Supreme Court will have a final opinion in the case, but the Kelly administration was seeking a decision before a potential appeal in its SNAP case.
(This story was updated to add new information.)
Kansas
Kansas City mulls options to try to prevent major changes to Midtown Costco
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Kansas City leaders are worried Costco could be planning some big changes for its Midtown store on Linwood Boulevard.
The changes could lead to popular prepared foods and services going away if the wholesaler opts to cater more to restaurants and businesses.
Mayor Quinton Lucas and Council Member Melissa Patterson Hazley drafted a resolution for Thursday’s agenda in response to concerns Costco is considering converting the Linwood Boulevard warehouse to a business center. Costco Wholesale Corp could not be reached for questions about whether a possible change in focus for the current store is in consideration.
Monday marked 25 years in business for Kansas City’s Costco at Midtown Market Place. The store’s warehouse lets shoppers stock up on hundreds of dry goods and paper products, but also offers other quick grab options and services including a food court, pharmacy and tire center.
Now as there are plans for Costco to add a sixth store to the Metro in Lee’s Summit, city leaders are responding to concerns Costco may change their business model in Midtown.
“I have received many phone calls from my constituents about the possibility of converting midtown Costco to a business center. That would significantly impact shoppers from all across the district.”
According to Costco, business centers have different items like office supplies and restaurant equipment. Other food items found at traditional Costco Warehouses may only be available by the pallet or truckload. They don’t generally have food courts, pharmacies and tire centers.
“We already go to Costco and it is nice. I don’t need things to get bigger. I use the food court, I use the bakery, I use the rotisserie chickens. If you are going to get rid of all of that I’d be less inclined to go.”
The resolution introduced Thursday directs the city manager to work with economic development agencies to negotiate with Costco to keep the store in Midtown, with similar or better services.
“Obviously the Costco has been a core central part of Midtown for generations. It has been vital, a whole of people use it. This is a direction particularly to our economic development corporation to make sure we retain it in its current style, that we work with corporate to let them know that they are welcome and to make sure the store stays in the manner of operation that it exists now,” Lucas said.
-
Montana1 week agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says
-
Delaware1 week agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Dallas, TX1 week agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Virginia1 week agoVirginia Tech gains commitment from ACC transfer QB
-
Montana1 week ago‘It was apocalyptic’, woman tells Crans-Montana memorial service, as bar owner detained
-
Minnesota1 week agoICE arrests in Minnesota surge include numerous convicted child rapists, killers
-
Oklahoma6 days agoMissing 12-year-old Oklahoma boy found safe
-
Lifestyle3 days agoJulio Iglesias accused of sexual assault as Spanish prosecutors study the allegations