Kansas lawmakers lean on rule against ‘impugning motives,’ stifling criticism

The tension between voting rights lobbyist Melissa Stiehler and members of the House Elections Committee boiled over when Stiehler told them “lawmaking based on xenophobic propaganda is morally disgusting.” (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

TOPEKA — The tension between voting rights lobbyist Melissa Stiehler and a committee of Kansas legislators boiled over when Stiehler told them “lawmaking based on xenophobic propaganda is morally disgusting.”

A few Republicans shared glances, and Rep. Kristey Williams, an Augusta Republican, asked Stiehler to repeat herself.

When she did, Williams reprimanded her and read from her laptop screen: “We may not impugn or question the motives, integrity, or good faith of its committee members. We should do so with respect, and if it is not, then it is considered out of order.”

The committee’s vice chair later told Stiehler in an email that she should “know when to shut up,” and he asked her to send her husband and colleague to testify instead.

As the exchange at the Jan. 29 House Elections Committee hearing showed, the increasingly common claim of impugning motives, which is intended to prevent legislators from targeting people rather than legislation, is no longer limited to elected officials.

The term is one in a series of procedural maneuvers that affect legislative access, and some Republicans have been able to leverage the written and unwritten rules that govern legislators’ conduct, silencing dissent.

The tactics aren’t isolated to Kansas but are part of a strategy in mostly Republican-led states to wield power in nontraditional ways, according to an expert on democratic accountability and governance.

Complaints of impugning motives came up at least a dozen times in the House during the 2026 legislative session, appearing in debates ranging from a resolution to commemorate the life and death of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk to the “bathroom bill” that targets transgender Kansans, to restrictive voting legislation.

 

Rep. Blake Carpenter, a Derby Republican who frequently presides over House action, said the chamber’s rules protect both the minority and majority parties’ right to debate. Carpenter, right, appears on March 18, 2026, on the House floor. (Photo by Anna Kaminski/ Kansas Reflector)

Orderly debate prevents chaos

House Speaker Pro Tem Blake Carpenter, a Derby Republican who frequently presides over House floor sessions, said legislators must leave personalities out of discussion to maintain order.

Debates aren’t about the people in the seats, he said.

“Without orderly debate, what you end up with is chaos, essentially,” Carpenter said.

Rep. Tom Sawyer, a Wichita Democrat who has spent 30 years in the House, said complaints of impugning motives have risen in recent years.

“It certainly has become an issue now, now that people know about it,” he said.

State lawmakers are not supposed to attack the motivations of those who propose or advocate for or against a piece of legislation. In day-to-day floor debates and legislative negotiations, some Republicans cast a wide net, classifying discordant discussion as impugning a fellow Republican’s motives.

In Congress and state legislatures across the country, policymakers have valued decorum and orderly debate in parliamentary procedure — even if they have sometimes fallen short. A long tradition of written and unwritten rules have established a basis for discourse inside a legislative chamber that differs from the discourse that occurs outside of it.

Neither committee rules nor general House and Senate rules in Kansas define impugning, but the House’s fallback rulebook, “Mason’s Manual of Parliamentary Procedure,” acts as a guide.

Carpenter said “Mason’s Manual” protects the minority and majority parties, offering both equal opportunity to debate.

Every legislator has the same right as any other to offer proposals for consideration and be heard, “Mason’s Manual” reads. Lawmakers cannot deny others the rights they claim for themselves, and all members have a duty not to obstruct the rights of other members.

“Freedom of speech involves obedience to all the rules of debate,” the manual says. “The language used by members during debate should be temperate, decorous and respectful.”

The Senate uses a different set of rules to fill in its gaps, “Robert’s Rules of Order.” It’s an oft-referenced handbook in all levels of government that says, “It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.”

 

Republicans have challenged Rep. Ford Carr’s remarks and behavior multiple times in his four years as a legislator. The Wichita Democrat appears on Feb. 24, 2026, at a press conference in the Statehouse. A fellow Wichita Democrat, Rep. Abi Boatman, also of Wichita, appears to the right. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

‘A little out of hand’

The rules were tested again and again this year, up until the final day.

On Friday afternoon, Carpenter cracked down on behavior in the chamber, repeatedly demanding decorum. As legislators were weighing overrides of Gov. Laura Kelly’s line-item budget vetoes, Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat, shouted to the chamber, “I impugn all your motives.”

During the six-hour House floor debate on anti-trans legislation on Jan. 28, lawmakers slung multiple accusations of impugning motives.

A House Republican was warned against impugning Democratic lawmakers’ motives during a Feb. 24 debate on a bill regulating for-profit claim consultants who charge veterans for otherwise free services.

During Feb. 18 Senate floor debate on a proposal from an out-of-state think tank, Sen. Kellie Warren, a Leawood Republican, cautioned a Democrat against impugning the motives of those who bring bills to the Legislature.

In a Feb. 9 debate over a resolution honoring free speech and the life of Charlie Kirk, Democrats pushed back when they were accused of impugning.

Rep. Ford Carr, a Wichita Democrat who has repeatedly been the subject of complaints for speech and behavior, recited a Bible verse during the debate.

He said that Kirk, who was shot to death on Oct. 14, “reaped what he sowed.” But, he said, he wanted to give the bill a chance.

He asked Rep. Megan Steele, a Manhattan Republican who presented the bill, to answer a question.

She declined.

“That should really say all you need to know,” Carr said. “Freedom of speech yet she doesn’t want to speak. Imagine that.”

Rep. Steven Howe, a Salina Republican, interrupted.

“Mr. Chair,” Howe said, “the representative is impugning the motives of the bill carrier, and that is inappropriate and against House decorum and House rules.”

Carr threw up his hands.

“I object,” Carr said, and a fellow legislator shouted in support.

“You know, I think we’ve gotten a little out of hand with this impugning thing,” Carr added.

“Every time I come up here, every time I stand at this well, you want to say I’m impugning something. I’m not impugning a thing. I offered a question. The question was denied.”

 

Chris Koliba, a democracy and governance researcher and University of Kansas professor, invented a way to measure democratic backsliding. He appears here at an April 7, 2026, event in Lawrence. (Photo by Anna Kaminski/Kansas Reflector)

‘Slippery slope’

There are rules, and then there are norms, said Chris Koliba, a professor in public administration at the University of Kansas, a researcher and the co-director of the university’s Center for Democratic Governance.

Republicans nationwide have been able to use procedural gymnastics as a form of power, wielding rules and norms in ways that have not been traditionally acceptable, Koliba said.

“If you ask me, it’s because Democrats have tended to not want to violate those norms,” he said.

When Kansas legislators are accused of impugning a colleague’s motives, debate typically stops briefly, then pivots or ends entirely.

A democracy functions best when differences are aired and compromises come about, Koliba said. Some of his work centers on the principles that preserve a functioning democracy and the changes that threaten it.

In 2024, he published a guide to measure democratic accountability. Within the rubric are seven standards of an accountable democracy.

One is tolerance, defined by Koliba as the expected tolerance for differing opinions, values and definitions of a good life. A transgression of the tolerance standard looks like “intentional or unintentional promotion of the intolerance of out-groups” or tolerance for violations of democratic principles, his guide said.

Ingrained in his view of tolerance is the “do unto others notion,” or the biblical golden rule. Koliba said policymakers shouldn’t pass or enforce a rule that “if you were in the minority, you would take objection to it.”

Another standard, institutional forbearance, is ruptured, per Koliba’s framework, when policymakers undermine democratic institutions or advance efforts to deconstruct or modify those institutions in ways that are contrary to other democratic standards.

“We need democratic institutions that are stable, that are reliable, just like you want a regulatory framework for the economy to be predictable,” Koliba said.

The solution to the Kansas GOP’s procedural gymnastics, he said, must involve a firmly bipartisan or nonpartisan rules committee.

Without one, the majority is free to quell and quash the minority, Koliba said.

“That’s a dangerous, slippery slope,” he said.

 

Rep. Paul Waggoner, a Hutchinson Republican and vice chair of the House Elections Committee, emailed a lobbyist in January, criticizing her performance and word choice. He appears here on Feb. 3, 2026, during a House Elections Committee meeting. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

‘Enough said’

In committees, where accusations of impugning motives are rare, Stiehler, the advocacy director for Loud Light Civic Action, struck a nerve when she uttered “xenophobic propaganda” to describe a bill mandating citizenship status be featured on driver’s licenses.

Williams, a conservative who sits on the House Elections Committee, said the connotations of associating lawmakers or their policy with xenophobia are offensive.

Stiehler wrote an email to the entire committee after the hearing, apologizing and explaining her intentions. She said her words weren’t an accusation, but a caution to legislators to pay attention to facts, evidence and the text of legislation.

The committee’s vice chair, Republican Rep. Paul Waggoner of Hutchinson, responded to Stiehler. Kansas Reflector obtained a copy of his email, which appears unaltered below, where he references Stiehler’s husband, Davis Hammet, the president of Loud Light who has previously testified before the committee.

.indent2Container { margin-left: 1em; border-left: solid 1px var(--brand_one); padding-left: 2em; }

Stiehler said she is accustomed to being compared to Hammet. They write each other’s testimony and regularly share workloads.

“The thing that actually bothers me about this situation is whenever things like that happen, it makes people afraid to talk to their lawmakers,” she said.

Citizen engagement is discouraged, and a true, robust democratic process is shut down, she said, and the purported purpose of committees is to hear perspectives from all sides. 

“It didn’t matter what I intended,” Stiehler said. “They didn’t like hearing it.”

She said the way a select few Republican committee members weaponized their feelings to shut down debate was “offensive to democracy,” “offensive to free speech,” “fundamentally anti-American,” and “shameful.”

“It should not be easy to trample on the civil rights of the citizens of our state,” she said. “Even if they’re going to do it, it shouldn’t be easy.”