Reported violent and property crime, police reporting coverage, and Kansas public-safety context.
Reported violent-crime rate474.7 per 100k2024 · #8 of 50 · highest first
Reported property-crime rate2,174.4 per 100k2024 · #6 of 50 · highest first
Police population reporting coverage96.1%2024 · #39 of 50 · highest first
Kansas over time
Explore Kansas readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Kansas officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Kansas effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Kansas change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Reported violent-crime rate Kansas · source units
KansasPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
18 of 18 reviewed Kansas actions match · 15 date markers shown. 38 major events shown separately.
Kansas · 2024: 474.7 per 100k · Rank #8 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: Not available
FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query. These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred. Kansas coverage fell below 90% from 2016 through 2020 (87.0%–88.1%), so those five years are flagged as partial reporting. Coverage reached 90.7% in 2021 and 96.1% in 2024. Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Kansas · state comparison
Reported crime over time
Compare the same calendar year across states. A lower reported rate can reflect fewer crimes, incomplete reporting, or both.
Kansas · 2024474.7 per 100k
Kansas rank#8among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Reported violent-crime rate
FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.
These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred. Kansas coverage fell below 90% from 2016 through 2020 (87.0%–88.1%), so those five years are flagged as partial reporting. Coverage reached 90.7% in 2021 and 96.1% in 2024. Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Kansas
2024 · Kansas: 474.7 per 100k · Rank #8 of 50, highest first · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Kansas Reported violent-crime rate history
Period
Kansas
Compare
2015
404.6 per 100k
2016
388.5 per 100k
2017
408.9 per 100k
2018
444.3 per 100k
2019
430.8 per 100k
2020
447.6 per 100k
2021
463.1 per 100k
2022
448.7 per 100k
2023
435.8 per 100k
2024
474.7 per 100k
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Kansas stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Kansas has a dark outline.
Lower value · 102.6 per 100kHigher value · 744.7 per 100kStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Kansas · 474.7 per 100k2024 · Rank #8 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Kansas with every state · 50 ranked
Reported violent-crime rate · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New Mexico
744.7 per 100k
—
#2
Alaska
731.9 per 100k
—
#3
Tennessee
604.3 per 100k
—
#4
Arkansas
589.6 per 100k
—
#5*
Louisiana
504.5 per 100k
82.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#6
Colorado
486.8 per 100k
—
#7
California
478.4 per 100k
—
#8
Kansas · your comparison
474.7 per 100k
—
#9
Missouri
472.7 per 100k
—
#10
Michigan
442.6 per 100k
—
#11
South Carolina
440.8 per 100k
—
#12
Arizona
433 per 100k
—
#13
Oklahoma
429.3 per 100k
—
#14
Montana
428 per 100k
—
#15
Maryland
425.9 per 100k
—
#16
Nevada
408.6 per 100k
—
#17
Texas
397.8 per 100k
—
#18
New York
392.2 per 100k
—
#19
North Carolina
382.9 per 100k
—
#20
Alabama
380.8 per 100k
—
#21
Delaware
368.4 per 100k
—
#22*
South Dakota
356.9 per 100k
89.6% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#23*
Indiana
349.2 per 100k
87.2% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#24
Oregon
341.1 per 100k
—
#25
Washington
331.8 per 100k
—
#26
Georgia
328 per 100k
—
#27
Massachusetts
317.9 per 100k
—
#28
Ohio
311.9 per 100k
—
#29
Illinois
294.5 per 100k
—
#30
Wisconsin
287.6 per 100k
—
#31
West Virginia
263.8 per 100k
—
#32*
Florida
262 per 100k
81.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#33
Minnesota
259.4 per 100k
—
#34
North Dakota
258 per 100k
—
#35
Pennsylvania
251.3 per 100k
—
#36
Iowa
247.2 per 100k
—
#37
Utah
237.8 per 100k
—
#38
Idaho
236.6 per 100k
—
#39
Hawaii
230.3 per 100k
—
#40
Vermont
227.1 per 100k
—
#41
Kentucky
226.7 per 100k
—
#42
Nebraska
224.6 per 100k
—
#43
Virginia
223.7 per 100k
—
#44
New Jersey
221.9 per 100k
—
#45*
Mississippi
219.6 per 100k
65.1% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#46*
Wyoming
212.5 per 100k
89.9% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#47
Rhode Island
154.9 per 100k
—
#48
Connecticut
139.2 per 100k
—
#49
New Hampshire
112.3 per 100k
—
#50
Maine
102.6 per 100k
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Violent offenses reported to law enforcement per 100,000 residents in participating jurisdictions.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.
These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred.
Kansas coverage fell below 90% from 2016 through 2020 (87.0%–88.1%), so those five years are flagged as partial reporting. Coverage reached 90.7% in 2021 and 96.1% in 2024.
Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
Average monthly population coverage in 2024 was 96.1%; this is not complete statewide reporting.
Property offenses reported to law enforcement per 100,000 residents in participating jurisdictions.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.
These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred.
Kansas coverage fell below 90% from 2016 through 2020 (87.0%–88.1%), so those five years are flagged as partial reporting. Coverage reached 90.7% in 2021 and 96.1% in 2024.
Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
Average monthly population coverage in 2024 was 96.1%; this is not complete statewide reporting.
Firearm deaths include suicide, homicide, and other intents. Mortality is separate from reported crime.
Kansas · 2024446
Kansas rank#32among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Firearm deaths
Deaths with firearm injury recorded as the cause, all intents.
Counts reflect population size. They do not measure shootings, crimes, or the effect of a policy.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Kansas stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Kansas has a dark outline.
Lower value · 55Higher value · 4,389Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Kansas · 4462024 · Rank #32 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Kansas with every state · 50 ranked
Firearm deaths · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
4,389
—
#2
Florida
3,191
—
#3
California
2,853
—
#4
Georgia
1,985
—
#5
North Carolina
1,835
—
#6
Ohio
1,745
—
#7
Pennsylvania
1,624
—
#8
Illinois
1,563
—
#9
Tennessee
1,448
—
#10
Arizona
1,331
—
#11
Missouri
1,234
—
#12
Michigan
1,228
—
#13
Alabama
1,212
—
#14
Indiana
1,196
—
#15
Virginia
1,153
—
#16
South Carolina
1,064
—
#17
Louisiana
1,031
—
#18
Colorado
961
—
#19
Washington
915
—
#20
New York
896
—
#21
Kentucky
870
—
#22
Mississippi
810
—
#23
Oklahoma
794
—
#24
Wisconsin
735
—
#25
Maryland
716
—
#26
Oregon
663
—
#27
Arkansas
638
—
#28
Minnesota
582
—
#28
Nevada
582
—
#30
New Mexico
563
—
#31
Utah
454
—
#32
Kansas · your comparison
446
—
#33
New Jersey
393
—
#34
Iowa
389
—
#35
Idaho
331
—
#36
Massachusetts
287
—
#37
West Virginia
281
—
#38
Montana
247
—
#39
Connecticut
224
—
#40
Nebraska
218
—
#41
Alaska
182
—
#42
Maine
181
—
#43
South Dakota
159
—
#44
New Hampshire
152
—
#45
Wyoming
143
—
#46
Delaware
123
—
#47
North Dakota
95
—
#48
Vermont
76
—
#49
Hawaii
56
—
#50
Rhode Island
55
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
18 of 18 reviewed Kansas actions · newest first
Apr 27, 2026 · SB 82 · Providing tax credits for expenditures for lockable gun and ammunition storage and the retail sale of higher ethanol blends of fuel, discontinuing the tax credit for qualified alternative-fueled motor vehicle property or fueling station expenditures, repealing the agritourism liability insurance, assistive technology contributions, declared disaster capital investment, owners promoting employment across Kansas and swine facility improvement tax credits and expanding the eligibility for applicable expenses under the child day care services assistance tax credit. · SignedGovernor · SB 82
Providing tax credits for expenditures for lockable gun and ammunition storage and the retail sale of higher ethanol blends of fuel, discontinuing the tax credit for qualified alternative-fueled motor vehicle property or fueling station expenditures, repealing the agritourism liability insurance, assistive technology contributions, declared disaster capital investment, owners promoting employment across Kansas and swine facility improvement tax credits and expanding the eligibility for applicable expenses under the child day care services assistance tax credit.
Apr 27, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Laura Kelly · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Laura Kelly signed SB 82. The reviewed section 1 of SB 82 creates a Kansas resident income-tax credit for tax years 2026–2028 equal to 25% of qualifying lockable gun and ammunition storage purchases, capped at $250 per taxpayer per year, with unused credit carried forward. It concerns storage costs; it is not a cash payment to every gun owner or evidence of reduced mortality.
Approved by Governor on Monday, April 27, 2026. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide and other intents. Firearm regulation or storage concerns a possible component of injury prevention; it does not establish a change in deaths. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
New Section 1. (a) For tax years 2026 through 2028, there shall be allowed a credit against the tax liability of a resident individual imposed under the Kansas income tax act in an amount equal to 25% of the expenditures made by the individual during such tax year to purchase lockable gun and ammunition storage that is designed primarily for gun and ammunition storage . The amount of such credit allowed each tax year shall not exceed $250 for any taxpayer. (b) If the amount of the credit allowed by subsection (a) exceeds the taxpayer's income tax liability imposed under the Kansas income tax act for the tax year in which the credit is allowed, the amount of credit that exceeds such tax liability may be carried forward for deduction from the taxpayer's income tax liability in the next succeeding tax year or years until the total amount of the credit has been deducted from tax liability.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 10, 2026 · HB 2198 · Enacting the gun violence restraining order act to authorize the issuance of protective orders prohibiting the acquisition and possession of firearms by certain individuals. · Died in committeeKansas Legislature · HB 2198
Enacting the gun violence restraining order act to authorize the issuance of protective orders prohibiting the acquisition and possession of firearms by certain individuals.
Apr 10, 2026 · Died in committee
Rep. Barbara Ballard · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 2198 would allow courts to issue firearm restraining orders when the specified risk-of-injury standards are met, barring purchase or possession for up to one year and permitting firearm seizure. The reviewed provisions distinguish ordinary orders from orders without notice and provide a route to seek a hearing. The bill died in committee.
Died in committee on 2026-04-10. This bill did not enact the reviewed proposal.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide and other intents. Firearm regulation or storage concerns a possible component of injury prevention; it does not establish a change in deaths. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Sec. 3. (a) In an action under section 2, and amendments thereto, the court may issue a gun violence restraining order if the court determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant poses a significant risk of personal injury to self or others by possessing a firearm. In determining whether reasonable cause exists, the court shall consider all of the following: (1) Testimony, documents, or other evidence offered in support of the request for the gun violence restraining order; (2) whether the defendant has previously inflicted or threatened to inflict personal injury on self or others; and (3) any other facts that the court believes are relevant. (b) If the plaintiff in an action filed under section 2, and amendments thereto, is not an individual described in section (2)(a)(1) through (6), and amendments thereto, the court shall not issue the gun violence restraining order unless the court determines that the plaintiff has a close enough relationship with the defendant to justify the issuance of the order. (c) The court in an action under section 2, and amendments thereto, may issue a gun violence restraining order without written or oral notice to the defendant if the court determines that clear and convincing evidence has been submitted under oath or affirmation that irreparable injury will result from the delay required to effectuate notice or that the notice will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 HB 2198 3 itself precipitate adverse action before a gun violence restraining order can be issued. (d) A restrained individual under an order issued under subsection (c) may file a motion to modify or rescind the order and request a hearing. The motion to modify or rescind the order must be filed within 14 days after the order is served on the restrained individual or after the restrained individual receives actual notice of the order, unless good cause is shown for filing the motion after the 14 days have elapsed. (e) The court shall conduct a hearing on a motion under subsection (d) within 14 days after the motion is filed. If the restrained individual is an individual described in section 2(d), and amendments thereto, the court shall conduct a hearing on a motion under subsection (d) within five days after the motion is filed. Sec. 4. (a) If the court determines under section 3, and amendments thereto, that a gun violence restraining order is to be issued, the court shall include all of the following provisions in the order: (1) That the restrained individual shall not purchase or possess a firearm; (2) a statement that the restrained individual may file a motion to modify or rescind the order and request a hearing within 14 days after the restrained individual is served with or receives actual notice of the order and that motion forms and filing instructions are available from the clerk of the court, if such order is issued under section 3, and amendments thereto; (3) a statement that violation of the order will subject the restrained individual to immediate arrest and the civil and criminal contempt powers of the court; and (4) an expiration date that is not more than one year from the date of issuance. (b) In the discretion of the court, a gun violence restraining order may include an order to a law enforcement agency to seize firearms in the possession of the restrained individual. An order issued under this subsection shall specifically describe the firearms to be seized. The court may also order that a law enforcement agency seizing firearms under this subsection may seize any other firearms discovered that belong to or are in the possession of the restrained individual. (c) A gun violence restraining order is effective and enforceable immediately after it is served on the restrained individual or after the restrained individual receives actual notice of the order. The order may be enforced anywhere in this state by a law enforcement agency that receives a true copy of the order, is shown a copy of it or has verified its existence.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 9, 2026 · HB 2501 · Senate Substitute for HB 2501 by Committee on Federal and State Affairs - Providing for immunity from civil liability to federal firearms licensees for returning a firearm to the firearm owner at the termination of a firearm hold agreement, removing the criminal prohibition against firearm suppressors and shotgun barrel length qualification requirements and providing enhanced penalties for certain felonies committed while using a firearm suppressor or short-barrel shotgun. · SignedGovernor · HB 2501
Senate Substitute for HB 2501 by Committee on Federal and State Affairs - Providing for immunity from civil liability to federal firearms licensees for returning a firearm to the firearm owner at the termination of a firearm hold agreement, removing the criminal prohibition against firearm suppressors and shotgun barrel length qualification requirements and providing enhanced penalties for certain felonies committed while using a firearm suppressor or short-barrel shotgun.
Apr 9, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Laura Kelly · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Laura Kelly signed HB 2501. Laura Kelly signed HB 2501. The reviewed section 1 of HB 2501 provides civil immunity to federal firearms licensees for specified temporary firearm storage and return under voluntary hold agreements. It preserves discretion to decline storage, preempts additional local agreement requirements, and generally requires destruction of agreement records within 90 days after termination and return unless federal law requires retention. It does not demonstrate an effect on firearm deaths. On termination, the licensee must return the firearm without unreasonable delay or extra fees if its owner may lawfully possess it, except as expressly agreed. The act preserves the owner’s contract or property remedies for wrongful retention.
Approved by Governor on Thursday, April 9, 2026. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide and other intents. Firearm regulation or storage concerns a possible component of injury prevention; it does not establish a change in deaths. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
New Section 1. (a) As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise: (1) "Federal firearms licensee" means any person or entity licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923. (2) "Firearm" means the same as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921, as in effect on July 1, 2026. (3) "Firearm hold agreement" means a private agreement between a federal firearms licensee and an individual firearm owner in which the licensee takes physical possession of the owner's lawfully possessed firearm at the owner's request, holds the firearm for an agreed period of time and returns the firearm to the owner according to the terms of the agreement. If the firearm hold agreement does not provide for the disposition of a firearm abandoned by the owner, state law providing for the disposition of abandoned property applies. (4) "Municipality" means any city, county and consolidated city- county. (b) The individual firearms owner shall provide the make, model and serial number of each firearm to be held as part of the firearm hold agreement. The agreement shall also contain an option for the firearms owner to list a second person to contact in the event of the death or serious illness of the firearms owner. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of federal or state law, a federal firearms licensee conducting business in this state that has entered into a firearm hold agreement with a firearm owner shall be immune from any claim or cause of action of any kind under theory of liability, including, but not limited to, statutory claims or common law claims arising from tort or contract for any act or omission concerning, arising out of or related to the temporary storage of the firearm on the federal firearm licensee's licensed business premises or the return of a firearm to the individual firearm owner pursuant to the firearm hold agreement, including, without limitation, claims related to personal injury of death of a person resulting from the return of a firearm to the firearm owner at the termination of the firearm hold agreement. (d) Nothing in this act shall be construed to require a federal firearm licensee to accept a firearm for temporary storage on the licensee's premises at the request of the owner as a condition of such licensee's license, thereby allowing federal firearm licensees to have complete discretion in refusing to enter into a firearm hold agreement. (e) (1) Municipalities are preempted from imposing any regulation or additional terms on firearm hold agreements or from creating any civil course of action involving the parties to a firearm hold agreement. (2) The provisions of this act preempt any local statutes, laws or regulations that require or impose obligations on a federal firearm licensee to receive a firearm by a lawful owner for temporary storage pursuant to a firearm hold agreement that are beyond the requirements of this act. (f) A federal firearms licensee shall destroy and not retain in any form, including digital or electronic records, any firearm hold agreement, list of such agreements or identifying information related thereto, not later than 90 days after the termination of the agreement and return of the firearm to the owner, unless required to retain such records by federal law. Destruction shall be in a manner that prevents reconstruction of such records. (g) The voluntary exercise by a firearm owner of the right to temporarily transfer possession of a lawfully owned firearm pursuant to a firearm hold agreement and the subsequent exercise of the right to reclaim possession of such firearm shall be deemed the lawful exercise Senate Sub for HOUSE BILL No. 2501—page 2 of a property right and not give rise to: (1) Any presumption of negligence, fault, recklessness or foreseeability; (2) any inference that the firearm owner lacked the legal capacity or fitness to possess a firearm; or (3) any duty, obligation or expectation that the firearm owner continue, extend or delay reclaiming possession of the firearm beyond the terms of the agreement. (h) The existence of a firearm hold agreement, the decision to enter into such agreement or the timing of a firearm's return pursuant to the agreement shall not be used to diminish, condition or burden a firearm owner's lawful right to possess property and, standing alone, not be admissible to establish a standard of care, breach of duty or comparative fault in any civil action against the firearm owner. (i) (1) Except as expressly agreed by the parties in a firearm hold agreement, a federal firearms licensee shall return the firearm to the firearm owner without unreasonable delay upon termination of the agreement and without any additional penalties and fees if the owner is not prohibited by law from possessing the firearm at the time of return. (2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to impair, waive or limit a firearm owner's right to recover possession of property or pursue relief for wrongful retention under contract or property law.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 9, 2026 · HB 2413 · Enhancing the criminal penalty for an offense committed with the intent to commit transnational repression, requiring the development of transnational repression recognition and response training, providing that theft of livestock or implements of husbandry is a severity level 5, nonperson felony, providing that the theft of grain or hay is a severity level 6, nonperson felony and providing that certain portions of the crime of cruelty to animals do not apply to any person who catches a feral cat to provide vaccination, spaying or neutering and returns such cat back to the location where such cat is caught. · EnactedKansas Legislature · HB 2413
Enhancing the criminal penalty for an offense committed with the intent to commit transnational repression, requiring the development of transnational repression recognition and response training, providing that theft of livestock or implements of husbandry is a severity level 5, nonperson felony, providing that the theft of grain or hay is a severity level 6, nonperson felony and providing that certain portions of the crime of cruelty to animals do not apply to any person who catches a feral cat to provide vaccination, spaying or neutering and returns such cat back to the location where such cat is caught.
The reviewed theft amendment in HB 2413 sets severity level 5 nonperson-felony penalties for theft of cattle, horses or implements of husbandry, and level 6 for theft of defined grain or hay. The grain definition requires at least 400 bushels; hay requires at least 20,000 pounds. These thresholds and definitions limit the new categories. Existing firearm-theft and fuel-theft language reproduced in the section is not treated as a new policy.
Approved by Governor on Thursday, April 9, 2026. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The FBI property-crime series includes burglary, larceny-theft and motor-vehicle theft, with incomplete and variable reporting coverage. A specific theft provision concerns one component. Fraud and identity theft are outside this series. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Reported property-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(9) property that is livestock or an implement of husbandry is a severity level 5, nonperson felony; and (10) property that is grain or hay is a severity level 6, nonperson felony. (c) As used in this section: (1) "Conviction" or "convicted" includes being convicted of a violation of K.S.A. 21-3701, prior to its repeal, this section or a municipal ordinance which that prohibits the acts that this section prohibits; (2) "grain" means at least 400 bushels of: (A) Barley, corn, flaxseed, oats, rye, sorghum, soybeans or wheat; (B) any other food grains, feed grains and oilseeds subject to standards under 7 U.S.C. Ch. 3, as in effect on July 1, 2026; or HOUSE BILL No. 2413—page 4 (C) any mix of the above; (3) "hay" means at least 20,000 pounds of alfalfa, brome, clover or prairie hays or all other grasses or plants that are harvested for forage; […] (4) "implement of husbandry" means the same as defined in K.S.A. 8-126, and amendments thereto; (5) "livestock" means cattle or horses;
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 9, 2026 · HB 2413 · Enhancing the criminal penalty for an offense committed with the intent to commit transnational repression, requiring the development of transnational repression recognition and response training, providing that theft of livestock or implements of husbandry is a severity level 5, nonperson felony, providing that the theft of grain or hay is a severity level 6, nonperson felony and providing that certain portions of the crime of cruelty to animals do not apply to any person who catches a feral cat to provide vaccination, spaying or neutering and returns such cat back to the location where such cat is caught. · SignedGovernor · HB 2413
Enhancing the criminal penalty for an offense committed with the intent to commit transnational repression, requiring the development of transnational repression recognition and response training, providing that theft of livestock or implements of husbandry is a severity level 5, nonperson felony, providing that the theft of grain or hay is a severity level 6, nonperson felony and providing that certain portions of the crime of cruelty to animals do not apply to any person who catches a feral cat to provide vaccination, spaying or neutering and returns such cat back to the location where such cat is caught.
Apr 9, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Laura Kelly · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Laura Kelly signed HB 2413. The reviewed theft amendment in HB 2413 sets severity level 5 nonperson-felony penalties for theft of cattle, horses or implements of husbandry, and level 6 for theft of defined grain or hay. The grain definition requires at least 400 bushels; hay requires at least 20,000 pounds. These thresholds and definitions limit the new categories. Existing firearm-theft and fuel-theft language reproduced in the section is not treated as a new policy.
Approved by Governor on Thursday, April 9, 2026. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The FBI property-crime series includes burglary, larceny-theft and motor-vehicle theft, with incomplete and variable reporting coverage. A specific theft provision concerns one component. Fraud and identity theft are outside this series. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Reported property-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(9) property that is livestock or an implement of husbandry is a severity level 5, nonperson felony; and (10) property that is grain or hay is a severity level 6, nonperson felony. (c) As used in this section: (1) "Conviction" or "convicted" includes being convicted of a violation of K.S.A. 21-3701, prior to its repeal, this section or a municipal ordinance which that prohibits the acts that this section prohibits; (2) "grain" means at least 400 bushels of: (A) Barley, corn, flaxseed, oats, rye, sorghum, soybeans or wheat; (B) any other food grains, feed grains and oilseeds subject to standards under 7 U.S.C. Ch. 3, as in effect on July 1, 2026; or HOUSE BILL No. 2413—page 4 (C) any mix of the above; (3) "hay" means at least 20,000 pounds of alfalfa, brome, clover or prairie hays or all other grasses or plants that are harvested for forage; […] (4) "implement of husbandry" means the same as defined in K.S.A. 8-126, and amendments thereto; (5) "livestock" means cattle or horses;
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Apr 9, 2026 · HB 2613 · Providing for the crime victims compensation board to establish fees chargeable for conducting examinations of persons who may be victims of sexual assault, authorizing the board to adopt rules and regulations to administer such fees and to use moneys in the crime victims compensation fund for the payment of such fees and allowing certain exceptions to the confidentiality of records and information given to the board. · SignedGovernor · HB 2613
Providing for the crime victims compensation board to establish fees chargeable for conducting examinations of persons who may be victims of sexual assault, authorizing the board to adopt rules and regulations to administer such fees and to use moneys in the crime victims compensation fund for the payment of such fees and allowing certain exceptions to the confidentiality of records and information given to the board.
Apr 9, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Laura Kelly · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Laura Kelly signed HB 2613. The reviewed section 1(h) of HB 2613 moves responsibility for setting and paying sexual-assault examination fees to the crime victims compensation board. Payment does not depend on the victim reporting to police or otherwise qualifying for compensation, and the provision retains the bar on billing the victim or their insurer. It concerns forensic evidence collection rather than a measured change in violent crime.
Approved by Governor on Thursday, April 9, 2026. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The FBI series includes reported murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Sexual-assault forensic examination concerns evidence collection for a component of this series, including rape, but covers offenses outside it as well. Reporting coverage is incomplete and variable. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(h) The fee chargeable for conducting an examination of a victim […] in this section shall be established by […] crime victims compensation board established pursuant to K.S.A. 74-7303, and amendments thereto . Such fee, including the cost of the sexual assault evidence collection kit, shall be charged to and paid by […] crime victims compensation board , and refusal of the victim to report the alleged offense to law enforcement shall not excuse or exempt […] crime victims compensation board from paying such fee. Payment of such fee is not contingent on a victim or claimant being otherwise eligible for compensation under K.S.A. 74-7301 et seq., and amendments thereto. The fee for conducting an examination of a victim pursuant to this section shall not be charged or billed to the victim or to the victim's insurance carrier. […] The crime victims compensation board shall be reimbursed such fee upon the costs being paid by the defendant as court costs assessed pursuant to K.S.A. 28-172a, and amendments thereto.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Kansas officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about crime, victimization, policing and criminal justice from FactVote’s Kansas candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
18 statements from 7 candidates
2026 Kansas Attorney General — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 7 statements
The Attorney General’s office hosts training for local law enforcement throughout the year. Most of these are held in Topeka, and many of the smaller departments across Kansas cannot afford to send their staff without sacrificing emergency response coverage in their communities. As Attorney General,…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Education and workforce development
Candidate campaign source
The Attorney General’s office hosts training for local law enforcement throughout the year. Most of these are held in Topeka, and many of the smaller departments across Kansas cannot afford to send their staff without sacrificing emergency response coverage in their communities. As Attorney General, Chris will commit to hosting training sessions throughout the state and expanding online options to increase access for all of our law enforcement, not just those in the northeast corner.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
As Chris has traveled the state, he has heard from local law enforcement that the number of drug cases in their communities has skyrocketed. As Attorney General, Chris will work to increase access to resources and strengthen intercounty cooperation and coordination to ensure law enforcement has the …
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Public safety and criminal justice
Candidate campaign source
As Chris has traveled the state, he has heard from local law enforcement that the number of drug cases in their communities has skyrocketed. As Attorney General, Chris will work to increase access to resources and strengthen intercounty cooperation and coordination to ensure law enforcement has the resources needed to investigate and prosecute these crimes and get dangerous drugs off our streets.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
As Attorney General, Chris will hold quarterly meetings across the state with all local law enforcement leaders to increase communication and identify emerging crime trends that may require additional resources or support. These meetings will be held in every corner of the state and online to reduce…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Public safety and criminal justice
Candidate campaign source
As Attorney General, Chris will hold quarterly meetings across the state with all local law enforcement leaders to increase communication and identify emerging crime trends that may require additional resources or support. These meetings will be held in every corner of the state and online to reduce barriers to law enforcement getting the support they need.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Chris will partner with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to share intelligence and strengthen the state-level approach to fraud and scam prevention, particularly when it comes to the rise in cybercrimes. Working in collaboration with other agencies will streamline the Office of the…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Public safety and criminal justice
Candidate campaign source
Chris will partner with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to share intelligence and strengthen the state-level approach to fraud and scam prevention, particularly when it comes to the rise in cybercrimes. Working in collaboration with other agencies will streamline the Office of the Attorney General’s ability to investigate when Kansans report scams and stop them before more money is lost.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Chris will work with the Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Prevention Council, which is part of the Attorney General’s office, to develop recommendations for relevant state agencies and law enforcement to improve statewide fraud education and training on identifying and prosecuting these cases.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Education and workforce development
Candidate campaign source
Chris will work with the Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Prevention Council, which is part of the Attorney General’s office, to develop recommendations for relevant state agencies and law enforcement to improve statewide fraud education and training on identifying and prosecuting these cases.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
The Attorney General’s office has a Victims Services division dedicated to supporting victims and survivors throughout Kansas through state and local programs aimed at reducing violence and providing aid. This includes more than $2.5 million in annual grants to provide direct resources to victims an…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Address rising domestic violence lethality
Candidate campaign source
The Attorney General’s office has a Victims Services division dedicated to supporting victims and survivors throughout Kansas through state and local programs aimed at reducing violence and providing aid. This includes more than $2.5 million in annual grants to provide direct resources to victims and develop community-level violence prevention programs. As Attorney General, Chris will work diligently to ensure these resources are allocated as efficiently as possible so our local shelters receive the support they need to protect survivors.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
There has been a dramatic spike in overdose cases throughout our state, and more than 2,000 Kansans have died from fentanyl overdoses. As Attorney General, Chris will be laser-focused on public safety solutions that confront this crisis head-on, including targeting drug traffickers, supporting local…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care and public health
Candidate campaign source
There has been a dramatic spike in overdose cases throughout our state, and more than 2,000 Kansans have died from fentanyl overdoses. As Attorney General, Chris will be laser-focused on public safety solutions that confront this crisis head-on, including targeting drug traffickers, supporting local and state law enforcement in getting dangerous drugs off our streets, ensuring all communities have Naloxone readily available, and strengthening prevention and treatment programs.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
In addition to chairing the House Elections Committee, I am also an assistant professor at Wichita State University teaching courses on the threats to our homeland and the techniques we can employ to secure the operations of our Kansas government. New challenges arise constantly from nefarious forei…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Elections, ethics, and government accountability
Candidate campaign source
In addition to chairing the House Elections Committee, I am also an assistant professor at Wichita State University teaching courses on the threats to our homeland and the techniques we can employ to secure the operations of our Kansas government. New challenges arise constantly from nefarious foreign and domestic actors to affect the integrity of our elections. As Secretary of State I will be ever vigilant regarding these threats and know how to effectively engage law enforcement and our partners in other states and the federal government. I am also a member of the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission Board of Advisors, providing input on national election security matters. And, as the Chairman of the Kansas Security Committee, I provide oversight of the state’s efforts to secure critical infrastructure and keep Kansans safe
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
This section matches specific crime, victimization, policing and criminal justice terms in retained, attributed source text from published Kansas candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Kansas incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Kansas legislators and Kansas’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Kansas’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
43 matching sponsorships or proposals · 41 Kansas incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Allen Reavis
Kansas House of Representatives, District 63 · R–KS
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Allen ReavisKansas Legislature · HB 2444
Providing that jail credit when consecutive sentences are imposed shall not apply to more than one case, creating special sentencing rules when a felony is committed by certain offenders while on probation, parole or postrelease supervision for a prior felony and requiring secured minimum bonds for certain defendants who commit a new felony while on probation, parole, postrelease supervision or bond for a prior felony unless the court makes certain findings.
Apr 6, 2026 · Enacted
Rep. Kyle McNorton · Sponsored / Rep. Avery Anderson · Sponsored / Rep. Bradley Barrett · Sponsored / Rep. Doug Blex · Sponsored / Rep. Lewis "Bill" Bloom · Sponsored / Rep. Lauren Bohi · Sponsored / Rep. Sherri Brantley · Sponsored / Rep. Ron Bryce · Sponsored / Rep. David Buehler · Sponsored / Rep. Nathan Butler · Sponsored / Rep. Carolyn Caiharr · Sponsored / Rep. Shawn Chauncey · Sponsored / Rep. Kenneth Collins · Sponsored / Rep. Duane Droge · Sponsored / Rep. Ronald Ellis · Sponsored / Rep. Dale Helwig · Sponsored / Rep. Timothy Johnson · Sponsored / Rep. Marty Long · Sponsored / Rep. Jim Minnix · Sponsored / Rep. Lance W. Neelly · Sponsored / Rep. Allen Reavis · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Rhiley · Sponsored / Rep. Angelina Roeser · Sponsored / Rep. Webster T. Roth · Sponsored / Rep. Courtney Sappington · Sponsored / Rep. Kevin Schwertfeger · Sponsored / Rep. Joe Seiwert · Sponsored / Rep. Chuck Smith · Sponsored / Rep. Megan Steele · Sponsored / Rep. Angela Stiens · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Sutton · Sponsored / Rep. Sean Tarwater · Sponsored / Rep. Chip VanHouden · Sponsored / Rep. Barb Wasinger · Sponsored / Rep. Gary White · Sponsored / Rep. Kristey Williams · Sponsored / Rep. Greg Wilson · Sponsored / Rep. Dawn Wolf · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The reviewed section 1(d) of HB 2444 provides that a day of custody attributable to more than one case is credited only once against consecutive sentences, while allowing allocation among cases. It states application to sentences before, on or after July 1, 2026 and specified pending or later proceedings. Sentence credit concerns time in custody; the provision does not quantify the KDOC population.
Approved by Governor on Monday, April 6, 2026. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts adults in KDOC facilities at a point in time. Sentence-credit and parole rules concern time in custody or release; county jails, juvenile detention, federal custody and people on parole are outside the reported facility count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Adults in state correctional facilities. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(d) (1) When consecutive sentences are imposed on a defendant, days spent in custody that are attributable to more than one case shall be credited only once against the aggregated consecutive term. The sentencing court may allocate such days to one case or apportion such days among cases, but the same days shall not be applied more than once to reduce multiple portions of consecutive terms. (2) The provisions of this subsection shall apply to: (A) All sentences, whether pronounced before, on or after July 1, 2026, and to all computations of jail credit by the department of HOUSE BILL No. 2444—page 2 corrections and the courts; and (B) any case posture, including, but not limited to, direct appeals, probation revocation proceedings, motions to correct illegal sentence, habeas corpus actions and actions under K.S.A. 60-1507, and amendments thereto, pending on or filed after July 1, 2026. (3) Any judicial interpretations regarding application of jail time credit to consecutive sentences in conflict with or inconsistent with this section and the amendments to this section by this act are superseded to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency.
Providing that jail credit when consecutive sentences are imposed shall not apply to more than one case, creating special sentencing rules when a felony is committed by certain offenders while on probation, parole or postrelease supervision for a prior felony and requiring secured minimum bonds for certain defendants who commit a new felony while on probation, parole, postrelease supervision or bond for a prior felony unless the court makes certain findings.
Apr 6, 2026 · Enacted
Rep. Kyle McNorton · Sponsored / Rep. Avery Anderson · Sponsored / Rep. Bradley Barrett · Sponsored / Rep. Doug Blex · Sponsored / Rep. Lewis "Bill" Bloom · Sponsored / Rep. Lauren Bohi · Sponsored / Rep. Sherri Brantley · Sponsored / Rep. Ron Bryce · Sponsored / Rep. David Buehler · Sponsored / Rep. Nathan Butler · Sponsored / Rep. Carolyn Caiharr · Sponsored / Rep. Shawn Chauncey · Sponsored / Rep. Kenneth Collins · Sponsored / Rep. Duane Droge · Sponsored / Rep. Ronald Ellis · Sponsored / Rep. Dale Helwig · Sponsored / Rep. Timothy Johnson · Sponsored / Rep. Marty Long · Sponsored / Rep. Jim Minnix · Sponsored / Rep. Lance W. Neelly · Sponsored / Rep. Allen Reavis · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Rhiley · Sponsored / Rep. Angelina Roeser · Sponsored / Rep. Webster T. Roth · Sponsored / Rep. Courtney Sappington · Sponsored / Rep. Kevin Schwertfeger · Sponsored / Rep. Joe Seiwert · Sponsored / Rep. Chuck Smith · Sponsored / Rep. Megan Steele · Sponsored / Rep. Angela Stiens · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Sutton · Sponsored / Rep. Sean Tarwater · Sponsored / Rep. Chip VanHouden · Sponsored / Rep. Barb Wasinger · Sponsored / Rep. Gary White · Sponsored / Rep. Kristey Williams · Sponsored / Rep. Greg Wilson · Sponsored / Rep. Dawn Wolf · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The reviewed section 1(d) of HB 2444 provides that a day of custody attributable to more than one case is credited only once against consecutive sentences, while allowing allocation among cases. It states application to sentences before, on or after July 1, 2026 and specified pending or later proceedings. Sentence credit concerns time in custody; the provision does not quantify the KDOC population.
Approved by Governor on Monday, April 6, 2026. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts adults in KDOC facilities at a point in time. Sentence-credit and parole rules concern time in custody or release; county jails, juvenile detention, federal custody and people on parole are outside the reported facility count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Adults in state correctional facilities. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(d) (1) When consecutive sentences are imposed on a defendant, days spent in custody that are attributable to more than one case shall be credited only once against the aggregated consecutive term. The sentencing court may allocate such days to one case or apportion such days among cases, but the same days shall not be applied more than once to reduce multiple portions of consecutive terms. (2) The provisions of this subsection shall apply to: (A) All sentences, whether pronounced before, on or after July 1, 2026, and to all computations of jail credit by the department of HOUSE BILL No. 2444—page 2 corrections and the courts; and (B) any case posture, including, but not limited to, direct appeals, probation revocation proceedings, motions to correct illegal sentence, habeas corpus actions and actions under K.S.A. 60-1507, and amendments thereto, pending on or filed after July 1, 2026. (3) Any judicial interpretations regarding application of jail time credit to consecutive sentences in conflict with or inconsistent with this section and the amendments to this section by this act are superseded to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency.
Providing that jail credit when consecutive sentences are imposed shall not apply to more than one case, creating special sentencing rules when a felony is committed by certain offenders while on probation, parole or postrelease supervision for a prior felony and requiring secured minimum bonds for certain defendants who commit a new felony while on probation, parole, postrelease supervision or bond for a prior felony unless the court makes certain findings.
Apr 6, 2026 · Enacted
Rep. Kyle McNorton · Sponsored / Rep. Avery Anderson · Sponsored / Rep. Bradley Barrett · Sponsored / Rep. Doug Blex · Sponsored / Rep. Lewis "Bill" Bloom · Sponsored / Rep. Lauren Bohi · Sponsored / Rep. Sherri Brantley · Sponsored / Rep. Ron Bryce · Sponsored / Rep. David Buehler · Sponsored / Rep. Nathan Butler · Sponsored / Rep. Carolyn Caiharr · Sponsored / Rep. Shawn Chauncey · Sponsored / Rep. Kenneth Collins · Sponsored / Rep. Duane Droge · Sponsored / Rep. Ronald Ellis · Sponsored / Rep. Dale Helwig · Sponsored / Rep. Timothy Johnson · Sponsored / Rep. Marty Long · Sponsored / Rep. Jim Minnix · Sponsored / Rep. Lance W. Neelly · Sponsored / Rep. Allen Reavis · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Rhiley · Sponsored / Rep. Angelina Roeser · Sponsored / Rep. Webster T. Roth · Sponsored / Rep. Courtney Sappington · Sponsored / Rep. Kevin Schwertfeger · Sponsored / Rep. Joe Seiwert · Sponsored / Rep. Chuck Smith · Sponsored / Rep. Megan Steele · Sponsored / Rep. Angela Stiens · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Sutton · Sponsored / Rep. Sean Tarwater · Sponsored / Rep. Chip VanHouden · Sponsored / Rep. Barb Wasinger · Sponsored / Rep. Gary White · Sponsored / Rep. Kristey Williams · Sponsored / Rep. Greg Wilson · Sponsored / Rep. Dawn Wolf · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The reviewed section 1(d) of HB 2444 provides that a day of custody attributable to more than one case is credited only once against consecutive sentences, while allowing allocation among cases. It states application to sentences before, on or after July 1, 2026 and specified pending or later proceedings. Sentence credit concerns time in custody; the provision does not quantify the KDOC population.
Approved by Governor on Monday, April 6, 2026. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts adults in KDOC facilities at a point in time. Sentence-credit and parole rules concern time in custody or release; county jails, juvenile detention, federal custody and people on parole are outside the reported facility count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Adults in state correctional facilities. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(d) (1) When consecutive sentences are imposed on a defendant, days spent in custody that are attributable to more than one case shall be credited only once against the aggregated consecutive term. The sentencing court may allocate such days to one case or apportion such days among cases, but the same days shall not be applied more than once to reduce multiple portions of consecutive terms. (2) The provisions of this subsection shall apply to: (A) All sentences, whether pronounced before, on or after July 1, 2026, and to all computations of jail credit by the department of HOUSE BILL No. 2444—page 2 corrections and the courts; and (B) any case posture, including, but not limited to, direct appeals, probation revocation proceedings, motions to correct illegal sentence, habeas corpus actions and actions under K.S.A. 60-1507, and amendments thereto, pending on or filed after July 1, 2026. (3) Any judicial interpretations regarding application of jail time credit to consecutive sentences in conflict with or inconsistent with this section and the amendments to this section by this act are superseded to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency.
Providing that jail credit when consecutive sentences are imposed shall not apply to more than one case, creating special sentencing rules when a felony is committed by certain offenders while on probation, parole or postrelease supervision for a prior felony and requiring secured minimum bonds for certain defendants who commit a new felony while on probation, parole, postrelease supervision or bond for a prior felony unless the court makes certain findings.
Apr 6, 2026 · Enacted
Rep. Kyle McNorton · Sponsored / Rep. Avery Anderson · Sponsored / Rep. Bradley Barrett · Sponsored / Rep. Doug Blex · Sponsored / Rep. Lewis "Bill" Bloom · Sponsored / Rep. Lauren Bohi · Sponsored / Rep. Sherri Brantley · Sponsored / Rep. Ron Bryce · Sponsored / Rep. David Buehler · Sponsored / Rep. Nathan Butler · Sponsored / Rep. Carolyn Caiharr · Sponsored / Rep. Shawn Chauncey · Sponsored / Rep. Kenneth Collins · Sponsored / Rep. Duane Droge · Sponsored / Rep. Ronald Ellis · Sponsored / Rep. Dale Helwig · Sponsored / Rep. Timothy Johnson · Sponsored / Rep. Marty Long · Sponsored / Rep. Jim Minnix · Sponsored / Rep. Lance W. Neelly · Sponsored / Rep. Allen Reavis · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Rhiley · Sponsored / Rep. Angelina Roeser · Sponsored / Rep. Webster T. Roth · Sponsored / Rep. Courtney Sappington · Sponsored / Rep. Kevin Schwertfeger · Sponsored / Rep. Joe Seiwert · Sponsored / Rep. Chuck Smith · Sponsored / Rep. Megan Steele · Sponsored / Rep. Angela Stiens · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Sutton · Sponsored / Rep. Sean Tarwater · Sponsored / Rep. Chip VanHouden · Sponsored / Rep. Barb Wasinger · Sponsored / Rep. Gary White · Sponsored / Rep. Kristey Williams · Sponsored / Rep. Greg Wilson · Sponsored / Rep. Dawn Wolf · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The reviewed section 1(d) of HB 2444 provides that a day of custody attributable to more than one case is credited only once against consecutive sentences, while allowing allocation among cases. It states application to sentences before, on or after July 1, 2026 and specified pending or later proceedings. Sentence credit concerns time in custody; the provision does not quantify the KDOC population.
Approved by Governor on Monday, April 6, 2026. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts adults in KDOC facilities at a point in time. Sentence-credit and parole rules concern time in custody or release; county jails, juvenile detention, federal custody and people on parole are outside the reported facility count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Adults in state correctional facilities. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(d) (1) When consecutive sentences are imposed on a defendant, days spent in custody that are attributable to more than one case shall be credited only once against the aggregated consecutive term. The sentencing court may allocate such days to one case or apportion such days among cases, but the same days shall not be applied more than once to reduce multiple portions of consecutive terms. (2) The provisions of this subsection shall apply to: (A) All sentences, whether pronounced before, on or after July 1, 2026, and to all computations of jail credit by the department of HOUSE BILL No. 2444—page 2 corrections and the courts; and (B) any case posture, including, but not limited to, direct appeals, probation revocation proceedings, motions to correct illegal sentence, habeas corpus actions and actions under K.S.A. 60-1507, and amendments thereto, pending on or filed after July 1, 2026. (3) Any judicial interpretations regarding application of jail time credit to consecutive sentences in conflict with or inconsistent with this section and the amendments to this section by this act are superseded to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency.
Providing that jail credit when consecutive sentences are imposed shall not apply to more than one case, creating special sentencing rules when a felony is committed by certain offenders while on probation, parole or postrelease supervision for a prior felony and requiring secured minimum bonds for certain defendants who commit a new felony while on probation, parole, postrelease supervision or bond for a prior felony unless the court makes certain findings.
Apr 6, 2026 · Enacted
Rep. Kyle McNorton · Sponsored / Rep. Avery Anderson · Sponsored / Rep. Bradley Barrett · Sponsored / Rep. Doug Blex · Sponsored / Rep. Lewis "Bill" Bloom · Sponsored / Rep. Lauren Bohi · Sponsored / Rep. Sherri Brantley · Sponsored / Rep. Ron Bryce · Sponsored / Rep. David Buehler · Sponsored / Rep. Nathan Butler · Sponsored / Rep. Carolyn Caiharr · Sponsored / Rep. Shawn Chauncey · Sponsored / Rep. Kenneth Collins · Sponsored / Rep. Duane Droge · Sponsored / Rep. Ronald Ellis · Sponsored / Rep. Dale Helwig · Sponsored / Rep. Timothy Johnson · Sponsored / Rep. Marty Long · Sponsored / Rep. Jim Minnix · Sponsored / Rep. Lance W. Neelly · Sponsored / Rep. Allen Reavis · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Rhiley · Sponsored / Rep. Angelina Roeser · Sponsored / Rep. Webster T. Roth · Sponsored / Rep. Courtney Sappington · Sponsored / Rep. Kevin Schwertfeger · Sponsored / Rep. Joe Seiwert · Sponsored / Rep. Chuck Smith · Sponsored / Rep. Megan Steele · Sponsored / Rep. Angela Stiens · Sponsored / Rep. Bill Sutton · Sponsored / Rep. Sean Tarwater · Sponsored / Rep. Chip VanHouden · Sponsored / Rep. Barb Wasinger · Sponsored / Rep. Gary White · Sponsored / Rep. Kristey Williams · Sponsored / Rep. Greg Wilson · Sponsored / Rep. Dawn Wolf · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The reviewed section 1(d) of HB 2444 provides that a day of custody attributable to more than one case is credited only once against consecutive sentences, while allowing allocation among cases. It states application to sentences before, on or after July 1, 2026 and specified pending or later proceedings. Sentence credit concerns time in custody; the provision does not quantify the KDOC population.
Approved by Governor on Monday, April 6, 2026. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The fact counts adults in KDOC facilities at a point in time. Sentence-credit and parole rules concern time in custody or release; county jails, juvenile detention, federal custody and people on parole are outside the reported facility count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Adults in state correctional facilities. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(d) (1) When consecutive sentences are imposed on a defendant, days spent in custody that are attributable to more than one case shall be credited only once against the aggregated consecutive term. The sentencing court may allocate such days to one case or apportion such days among cases, but the same days shall not be applied more than once to reduce multiple portions of consecutive terms. (2) The provisions of this subsection shall apply to: (A) All sentences, whether pronounced before, on or after July 1, 2026, and to all computations of jail credit by the department of HOUSE BILL No. 2444—page 2 corrections and the courts; and (B) any case posture, including, but not limited to, direct appeals, probation revocation proceedings, motions to correct illegal sentence, habeas corpus actions and actions under K.S.A. 60-1507, and amendments thereto, pending on or filed after July 1, 2026. (3) Any judicial interpretations regarding application of jail time credit to consecutive sentences in conflict with or inconsistent with this section and the amendments to this section by this act are superseded to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency.
Kansas House of Representatives, District 44 · D–KS
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Barbara BallardKansas Legislature · HB 2198
Enacting the gun violence restraining order act to authorize the issuance of protective orders prohibiting the acquisition and possession of firearms by certain individuals.
Apr 10, 2026 · Died in committee
Rep. Barbara Ballard · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 2198 would allow courts to issue firearm restraining orders when the specified risk-of-injury standards are met, barring purchase or possession for up to one year and permitting firearm seizure. The reviewed provisions distinguish ordinary orders from orders without notice and provide a route to seek a hearing. The bill died in committee.
Died in committee on 2026-04-10. This bill did not enact the reviewed proposal.
Why this record is included
Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide and other intents. Firearm regulation or storage concerns a possible component of injury prevention; it does not establish a change in deaths. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Kansas evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Sec. 3. (a) In an action under section 2, and amendments thereto, the court may issue a gun violence restraining order if the court determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant poses a significant risk of personal injury to self or others by possessing a firearm. In determining whether reasonable cause exists, the court shall consider all of the following: (1) Testimony, documents, or other evidence offered in support of the request for the gun violence restraining order; (2) whether the defendant has previously inflicted or threatened to inflict personal injury on self or others; and (3) any other facts that the court believes are relevant. (b) If the plaintiff in an action filed under section 2, and amendments thereto, is not an individual described in section (2)(a)(1) through (6), and amendments thereto, the court shall not issue the gun violence restraining order unless the court determines that the plaintiff has a close enough relationship with the defendant to justify the issuance of the order. (c) The court in an action under section 2, and amendments thereto, may issue a gun violence restraining order without written or oral notice to the defendant if the court determines that clear and convincing evidence has been submitted under oath or affirmation that irreparable injury will result from the delay required to effectuate notice or that the notice will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 HB 2198 3 itself precipitate adverse action before a gun violence restraining order can be issued. (d) A restrained individual under an order issued under subsection (c) may file a motion to modify or rescind the order and request a hearing. The motion to modify or rescind the order must be filed within 14 days after the order is served on the restrained individual or after the restrained individual receives actual notice of the order, unless good cause is shown for filing the motion after the 14 days have elapsed. (e) The court shall conduct a hearing on a motion under subsection (d) within 14 days after the motion is filed. If the restrained individual is an individual described in section 2(d), and amendments thereto, the court shall conduct a hearing on a motion under subsection (d) within five days after the motion is filed. Sec. 4. (a) If the court determines under section 3, and amendments thereto, that a gun violence restraining order is to be issued, the court shall include all of the following provisions in the order: (1) That the restrained individual shall not purchase or possess a firearm; (2) a statement that the restrained individual may file a motion to modify or rescind the order and request a hearing within 14 days after the restrained individual is served with or receives actual notice of the order and that motion forms and filing instructions are available from the clerk of the court, if such order is issued under section 3, and amendments thereto; (3) a statement that violation of the order will subject the restrained individual to immediate arrest and the civil and criminal contempt powers of the court; and (4) an expiration date that is not more than one year from the date of issuance. (b) In the discretion of the court, a gun violence restraining order may include an order to a law enforcement agency to seize firearms in the possession of the restrained individual. An order issued under this subsection shall specifically describe the firearms to be seized. The court may also order that a law enforcement agency seizing firearms under this subsection may seize any other firearms discovered that belong to or are in the possession of the restrained individual. (c) A gun violence restraining order is effective and enforceable immediately after it is served on the restrained individual or after the restrained individual receives actual notice of the order. The order may be enforced anywhere in this state by a law enforcement agency that receives a true copy of the order, is shown a copy of it or has verified its existence.
Only current Kansas officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Kansas statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Kansas snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Kansas, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.