Court Opinion

ID: 9542248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:32:23.899083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:18.421208
License: Public Domain

Larson, J.,
dissenting: I agree with and join Justice Lockett’s dissent.
I write separately only to express my disagreement with the majority statement that “if the dissent is correct, a legislator may be sued civilly or charged criminally for a word or words spoken in the House or Senate.”
The basic premise of Justice Lockett’s dissent and my view is that Article 2, § 22 of the Kansas Constitution fully protects all legitimate aspects of speech or debate which are necessary and integral parts of the legislative process. As such, a legislator could not be sued civilly or charged criminally while exercising the right to speak freely and debate fully the legislative agenda.
I would not extend the constitutional immunity to protect the type and kind of criminal conduct which Neufeld was alleged to have attempted to perpetrate on a fellow legislator and the citizens of Kansas. Neufeld’s alleged actions were repugnant to and did not further the legislative process. He is not entitled to the unfettered constitutional protections which have been bestowed upon him by the majority’s opinion.
I would reverse the trial court.
McFarland, C.J., and Lockett, J., join the foregoing dissent.