By OLIVIA BERGMEIER Salina Post

The popcorning sound of welders alongside the whirs of large overhead cranes moving heavy pieces of steel around the shop is a typical Tuesday for the workers at PKM Steel Service, INC.

Blue light cast against the welders' masks, and each took pride knowing that this American steel would be part of Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, Nev.&nbsp;

Before 2019, PKM Steel began work on more than 400 tons of American-made steel for part of the giant stadium, and in just a few short days, it will be the stage for Superbowl LVIII.

"405 tons took 11,630 hours of shop labor," said PKM Project Manager Todd Crissman. "That's us, production control, parts, beam line, cutting and fitting, welding, blasting, painting, and then loading it on the truck and out the door."

By 2019, PKM Steel finished shipping its section of Allegiant Stadium, and the stadium opened in 2020.

The company also constructed the steel for the Las Vegas Raiders Headquarters and Training Facility Intermountain Healthcare Performance Center in Henderson, Nev.&nbsp;

READ MORE:&nbsp;<a href="https://salinapost.com/posts/128611bc-b8f3-4cb8-9667-5b9fa764a124">Salinans Against BSL group requests change for an over-capacity Animal Shelter</a>

PKM Steel, the best-kept secret of Salina

The now-global steel production business began small, with Founder Paul Mai, a German immigrant from Schweinfurt, Germany, beginning his career as a young man in the post-war landscape of Europe.&nbsp;

He soon moved to the United States in 1958 with only about $20 in his pocket and no way to speak English. This didn't stop Mai from completing various jobs around Central Kansas until 1962 when he set up shop in Salina.

According to the <a href="https://www.pkmsteel.com/">PKM Steel Service website</a>, he opened a one-person welding shop in the southern industrial area of town. His first contract was the Roosevelt-Lincoln Middle School Gymnasium.

Sometime later, Mai contracted with Fort Riley to build the Bombing Range observation towers, and business began growing from there.

"Our founder built a heck of a facility all those years ago," said PKM Steel Project Manager Richard Roland. "We have an 80-ton crane lifting capacity, a 12-foot by five-foot blaster, and very good welders that can do complicated structures."

Roland said much of the company's success stems from Mai's initial business structure, gaining customers based on the worker's merit and dedication to steel fabrication.

In 1988, PKM Steel Service Inc. established itself as a permanent feature of Salina's industrial region. PKM has 290,000 square feet of fabrication space today and multiple additional companies, including MSS Transport Inc., <a href="https://salinasteel.com/">Salina Steel Supply Inc.</a> and <a href="https://www.maicoind.com/">Maico Industries Inc.</a>

Many of its customers know the company for consistent work and complicated welding capabilities. The Allegiant Stadium was a recent example of how complex welding can become in steel fabrication.

"This was a very complicated project. It was a lot of heavy welding," Roland said. "It was quite a bit of man hours per ton — we have some [projects] that are 1,600 tons that only take 8,000 man hours."

The Allegiant Stadium project had 28.7 hours of labor per ton of steel, which Crissman said was primarily due to the complicated welding required for the stadium.

LISTEN:&nbsp;<a href="https://salinapost.com/posts/eb9df953-96e5-4530-a4a8-9bf6344add0e">🎙King in the Community: State Rep. Steven Howe gives legislative update</a>

PKM Steel was only one of about 20 different steel fabrication companies in the U.S. that worked on the stadium, so they built just one portion of the larger structure.

Before any steel arrives at PKM, they source it from a foundry, often in the United States, to fabricate it for large projects like stadiums and arenas.

PKM initially sourced its steel from Belgium, but it began sourcing the metal worldwide once production became demanding.

Most of the steel arrives by train or truck in large beams or sheets, where welders and engineers at PKM will then cut, clean and construct various parts of the overall build to prepare for shipping.

According to PKM Project Manager Mike Whittecar, workers fit each part together before shipping the final product to customers.&nbsp;

Today, the President of PKM Steel, Frieda Mai-Weis, is the daughter of Paul Mai, and she continues his legacy with Whittecar, Roland, and Crissman, citing her leadership skills as a contributor to the company's global success.

"That sense of pride is a big thing," Crissman said. "Small-town guys putting steel together that goes nationwide — coast-to-coast and around the world."

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707489113753.jpeg" alt="The finished Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, Nev. Image courtesy PKM Steel Service Inc." />
 <figcaption>The finished Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, Nev. Image courtesy PKM Steel Service Inc.</figcaption>
 </figure>By OLIVIA BERGMEIER Salina PostThe popcorning sound of welders alongside the whirs of large overhead cranes moving heavy pieces of steel around the shop is a typical Tuesday for the workers at PKM Steel Service, INC.Blue light cast against the welders' masks, and each took pride knowing that this American steel would be part of Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, Nev.&nbsp;Before 2019, PKM Steel began work on more than 400 tons of American-made steel for part of the giant stadium, and in just a few short days, it will be the stage for Superbowl LVIII.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707489410482.jpeg" alt="Construction on the Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, Nev. Image courtesy PKM Steel Service Inc. " />
 <figcaption>Construction on the Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, Nev. Image courtesy PKM Steel Service Inc. </figcaption>
 </figure>"405 tons took 11,630 hours of shop labor," said PKM Project Manager Todd Crissman. "That's us, production control, parts, beam line, cutting and fitting, welding, blasting, painting, and then loading it on the truck and out the door."By 2019, PKM Steel finished shipping its section of Allegiant Stadium, and the stadium opened in 2020.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707433496184.jpeg" alt="Construction workers mill about under the large awning of what would become part of the Las Vegas Raiders Headquarters and Training Facility Intermountain Healthcare Performance Center in Henderson, Nev. Image courtesy PKM Steel Service Inc." />
 <figcaption>Construction workers mill about under the large awning of what would become part of the Las Vegas Raiders Headquarters and Training Facility Intermountain Healthcare Performance Center in Henderson, Nev. Image courtesy PKM Steel Service Inc.</figcaption>
 </figure>The company also constructed the steel for the Las Vegas Raiders Headquarters and Training Facility Intermountain Healthcare Performance Center in Henderson, Nev.&nbsp;READ MORE:&nbsp;<a href="https://salinapost.com/posts/128611bc-b8f3-4cb8-9667-5b9fa764a124">Salinans Against BSL group requests change for an over-capacity Animal Shelter</a><h2>PKM Steel, the best-kept secret of Salina</h2>The now-global steel production business began small, with Founder Paul Mai, a German immigrant from Schweinfurt, Germany, beginning his career as a young man in the post-war landscape of Europe.&nbsp;He soon moved to the United States in 1958 with only about $20 in his pocket and no way to speak English. This didn't stop Mai from completing various jobs around Central Kansas until 1962 when he set up shop in Salina.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707431536691.jpeg" alt="PKM Steel Service Inc. Project Manager Mike Whittecar chats on the phone in one section of the PKM fabrication shops on Monday, Feb. 5, in Salina. Photo by Olivia Bergmeier" />
 <figcaption>PKM Steel Service Inc. Project Manager Mike Whittecar chats on the phone in one section of the PKM fabrication shops on Monday, Feb. 5, in Salina. Photo by Olivia Bergmeier</figcaption>
 </figure>According to the <a href="https://www.pkmsteel.com/">PKM Steel Service website</a>, he opened a one-person welding shop in the southern industrial area of town. His first contract was the Roosevelt-Lincoln Middle School Gymnasium.Sometime later, Mai contracted with Fort Riley to build the Bombing Range observation towers, and business began growing from there."Our founder built a heck of a facility all those years ago," said PKM Steel Project Manager Richard Roland. "We have an 80-ton crane lifting capacity, a 12-foot by five-foot blaster, and very good welders that can do complicated structures."<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707431633156.jpeg" alt="PKM Steel Service Inc., first founded in 1962, is one of the top steel fabrication businesses in the United States. Photo by Olivia Bergmeier" />
 <figcaption>PKM Steel Service Inc., first founded in 1962, is one of the top steel fabrication businesses in the United States. Photo by Olivia Bergmeier</figcaption>
 </figure>Roland said much of the company's success stems from Mai's initial business structure, gaining customers based on the worker's merit and dedication to steel fabrication.In 1988, PKM Steel Service Inc. established itself as a permanent feature of Salina's industrial region. PKM has 290,000 square feet of fabrication space today and multiple additional companies, including MSS Transport Inc., <a href="https://salinasteel.com/">Salina Steel Supply Inc.</a> and <a href="https://www.maicoind.com/">Maico Industries Inc.</a><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707490947332.jpeg" alt="A complicated joint comprised of different pieces of steel welded together by PKM Steel Service Inc. workers. Image courtesy PKM Steel Service Inc." />
 <figcaption>A complicated joint comprised of different pieces of steel welded together by PKM Steel Service Inc. workers. Image courtesy PKM Steel Service Inc.</figcaption>
 </figure>Many of its customers know the company for consistent work and complicated welding capabilities. The Allegiant Stadium was a recent example of how complex welding can become in steel fabrication."This was a very complicated project. It was a lot of heavy welding," Roland said. "It was quite a bit of man hours per ton — we have some [projects] that are 1,600 tons that only take 8,000 man hours."The Allegiant Stadium project had 28.7 hours of labor per ton of steel, which Crissman said was primarily due to the complicated welding required for the stadium.LISTEN:&nbsp;<a href="https://salinapost.com/posts/eb9df953-96e5-4530-a4a8-9bf6344add0e">🎙King in the Community: State Rep. Steven Howe gives legislative update</a>PKM Steel was only one of about 20 different steel fabrication companies in the U.S. that worked on the stadium, so they built just one portion of the larger structure.Before any steel arrives at PKM, they source it from a foundry, often in the United States, to fabricate it for large projects like stadiums and arenas.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707431699108.jpeg" alt="Stacks of steel sit in the PKM Steel Service Inc. holding bay, close to the railroad tracks just outside its large doors, on Monday, Feb. 5, in Salina. Photo by Olivia Bergmeier" />
 <figcaption>Stacks of steel sit in the PKM Steel Service Inc. holding bay, close to the railroad tracks just outside its large doors, on Monday, Feb. 5, in Salina. Photo by Olivia Bergmeier</figcaption>
 </figure>PKM initially sourced its steel from Belgium, but it began sourcing the metal worldwide once production became demanding.Most of the steel arrives by train or truck in large beams or sheets, where welders and engineers at PKM will then cut, clean and construct various parts of the overall build to prepare for shipping.According to PKM Project Manager Mike Whittecar, workers fit each part together before shipping the final product to customers.&nbsp;Today, the President of PKM Steel, Frieda Mai-Weis, is the daughter of Paul Mai, and she continues his legacy with Whittecar, Roland, and Crissman, citing her leadership skills as a contributor to the company's global success."That sense of pride is a big thing," Crissman said. "Small-town guys putting steel together that goes nationwide — coast-to-coast and around the world."

Salina's best-kept secret — PKM Steel helped construct Super Bowl LVIII Allegiant Stadium

Kansas Wesleyan Coaches&nbsp;Show 6pm&nbsp; - Listen on KINA and&nbsp;<a href="http://910kina.com/" target="_blank">910kina.com</a>

<a href="http://910kina.com/" target="_blank"></a>Tuesday

Southeast of Saline vs. Beloit Basketball&nbsp; &nbsp; - Audio on 910AM/107.5fm and 910KINA.com - Video on Salina Post - Pregame Show 5:45 pm - Girls game 6:00 - Boys game 7:30

Kansas Wesleyan University at Bethany College Basketball -Audio on 910AM/107.5fm and 910KINA.com - Pregame Show 5:30 pm&nbsp;&nbsp; - WBB game 6:00 - MBB game 8:00

Southeast of Saline vs. Republic County Basketball - Audio on 910AM/107.5fm and 910KINA.com - Video on Salina Post - Pregame Show 5:45 pm - Girls game 6:00 - Boys game 7:30

Southeast of Saline vs. Minneapolis Basketball - Audio on 910AM/107.5fm and 910KINA.com - Video on Salina Post - Pregame Show 5:45 pm - Girls game 6:00 - Boys game 7:30

Sacred Heart at Council Grove - Video on Salina Post - Pregame Show 5:45 pm - Girls game 6:00 - Boys game 7:30

MRN Nascar Live 10 pm&nbsp; - Listen on KINA 910AM/107.5FM and&nbsp;<a href="http://910kiina.com/" target="_blank">910KINA.COM</a>

PRN The Pit Reporters 11 pm - Listen on KINA 910AM/107.5FM and&nbsp;<a href="http://910kiina.com/" target="_blank">910KINA.COM</a>

Superbowl 58: Kansas City Chiefs vs. San Francisco 49ers - Pregae at 1 pm from Allegiant Stadium, Las Vegas, NV - Listen on KINA 910AM/107.5FM and&nbsp;<a href="http://910kiina.com/" target="_blank">910KINA.COM</a>&nbsp;

MondayKansas Wesleyan Coaches&nbsp;Show 6pm&nbsp; - Listen on KINA and&nbsp;<a href="http://910kina.com/" target="_blank">910kina.com</a><a href="http://910kina.com/" target="_blank"></a>TuesdaySoutheast of Saline vs. Beloit Basketball&nbsp; &nbsp; - Audio on 910AM/107.5fm and 910KINA.com - Video on Salina Post - Pregame Show 5:45 pm - Girls game 6:00 - Boys game 7:30WednesdayKansas Wesleyan University at Bethany College Basketball -Audio on 910AM/107.5fm and 910KINA.com - Pregame Show 5:30 pm&nbsp;&nbsp; - WBB game 6:00 - MBB game 8:00ThursdaySoutheast of Saline vs. Republic County Basketball - Audio on 910AM/107.5fm and 910KINA.com - Video on Salina Post - Pregame Show 5:45 pm - Girls game 6:00 - Boys game 7:30FridaySoutheast of Saline vs. Minneapolis Basketball - Audio on 910AM/107.5fm and 910KINA.com - Video on Salina Post - Pregame Show 5:45 pm - Girls game 6:00 - Boys game 7:30Sacred Heart at Council Grove - Video on Salina Post - Pregame Show 5:45 pm - Girls game 6:00 - Boys game 7:30Saturday&nbsp;&nbsp;MRN Nascar Live 10 pm&nbsp; - Listen on KINA 910AM/107.5FM and&nbsp;<a href="http://910kiina.com/" target="_blank">910KINA.COM</a>PRN The Pit Reporters 11 pm - Listen on KINA 910AM/107.5FM and&nbsp;<a href="http://910kiina.com/" target="_blank">910KINA.COM</a>SundaySuperbowl 58: Kansas City Chiefs vs. San Francisco 49ers - Pregae at 1 pm from Allegiant Stadium, Las Vegas, NV - Listen on KINA 910AM/107.5FM and&nbsp;<a href="http://910kiina.com/" target="_blank">910KINA.COM</a>&nbsp;

KINA Sports Schedule

By SALINA POST Join 910KINA's Saturday Morning Show hosts Dave and Sam this Saturday from 9-11 a.m. on&nbsp;<a href="http://www.910kina.com/">910AM 107.5 FM.</a>

Hear highlights about community events, public affairs, and all things happening in Salina. Their approach is friendly, informative, and entertaining. To listen to past 910KINA Saturday Morning Shows head on over to the KINA podcast homepage&nbsp;<a href="https://streamdb7web.securenetsystems.net/cirrusencore/KINA&amp;embedOpened=true&amp;embedOpenedApp=song&amp;embedOpenedSong=910683and6831076845683KINA&amp;embedOpenedArtist=&amp;embedOpenedAlbum=">here.</a>

9:05 a.m. &nbsp;Michelle Dolan, Director of Development, Stewardship and Alumni on Singing Valentines, Night with the Yotes and other upcoming events.

9:30 a.m. &nbsp;Nathan King, Salina Post News Director

10:05 a.m. &nbsp;Mandy McIntire and Kimm Dennis on Kansas Honor Flight March Madness Pancake Dinner.

10:30 a.m. &nbsp;Daniel Craig, Tammy Walker Cancer Center with an update on Crossroads Marathon from last year and upcoming this year.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/8/1691172591916.png" alt="Dave and Sam" />
 <figcaption>Dave and Sam</figcaption>
 </figure>By SALINA POST Join 910KINA's Saturday Morning Show hosts Dave and Sam this Saturday from 9-11 a.m. on&nbsp;<a href="http://www.910kina.com/">910AM 107.5 FM.</a>Hear highlights about community events, public affairs, and all things happening in Salina. Their approach is friendly, informative, and entertaining. To listen to past 910KINA Saturday Morning Shows head on over to the KINA podcast homepage&nbsp;<a href="https://streamdb7web.securenetsystems.net/cirrusencore/KINA&amp;embedOpened=true&amp;embedOpenedApp=song&amp;embedOpenedSong=910683and6831076845683KINA&amp;embedOpenedArtist=&amp;embedOpenedAlbum=">here.</a>9:05 a.m. &nbsp;Michelle Dolan, Director of Development, Stewardship and Alumni on Singing Valentines, Night with the Yotes and other upcoming events.9:30 a.m. &nbsp;Nathan King, Salina Post News Director10:05 a.m. &nbsp;Mandy McIntire and Kimm Dennis on Kansas Honor Flight March Madness Pancake Dinner.10:30 a.m. &nbsp;Daniel Craig, Tammy Walker Cancer Center with an update on Crossroads Marathon from last year and upcoming this year.

910KINA Saturday Morning Show Lineup

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday heard two hours of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37">historic arguments</a>&nbsp;in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">Colorado case</a>&nbsp;to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot. The justices sounded highly skeptical of the effort.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen </a>to a replay of the oral argument

It's the first time that voters have tried to block a candidate from the presidency under a once-obscure post-Civil War constitutional provision barring those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

In tone and tenor, the justices' questions challenged the notion that a state court can order a presidential contender off the ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That section bars those who engage in insurrection from holding office.

The case was brought by a group of Republican and independent voters, and the state of Colorado. Their argument was rooted in the idea that states have the ability to police their own ballots and bar Trump for his role in the violent insurrection on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot stemmed from Trump's refusal to accept the results of the presidential election that the Republican lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

From across the court's ideological divide, there was near consensus that the Colorado arguments were flawed.

Justice Elena Kagan called the issue of determining whether someone engaged in insurrection “just more complicated and more contested and more political.” Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Jason Murray, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, about what would stop other states from citing Section 3 in taking aim at politicians they didn't like.

Murray gave well-rehearsed arguments that won the day in the Colorado Supreme Court, whose 4-3 ruling that Trump was ineligible got the case to Washington. Murray contended that the Capitol riot was a once-in-history sort of event and that courts would ensure that the provision isn't abused. But that line did not not seem to persuade the justices.

Section 3 presents a quandary for judges, who are reluctant to make decisions that reorder democratic elections, especially without a precedent. The provision doesn't spell out any procedures or even the meaning of “insurrection.” It just says anyone who engaged in one can't hold office.

The court's best way out may be a lookback to an 1869 case known as Griffin's case. That involved a Virginia man who argued he couldn't have been convicted of a crime because the judge who heard his case was, as a former Confederate, disqualified from office under Section 3.

Salmon Chase, who was then the chief justice of the Supreme Court, heard the case while acting as an appellate judge. He ruled that Congress had to create a mechanism for Section 3 to take effect. Congress did, but the measure expired in the 1940s.

The justices repeatedly asked about Griffin's case. Trump's lawyers have argued it is still the only rational way for Section 3 to be applied. Chase had argued previously that Section 3 took effect automatically so the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump contended his ruling was not good law. But that line of argument clearly didn’t carry the day.

The plaintiffs wanted this case to be about Jan. 6, not Griffin’s case. That sums up their problem.

They hoped for a Supreme Court affirmation that the former president did engage in insurrection and threaten the Constitution with his campaign to stay in office after his 2020 loss. But the justices weren’t going there.

Instead, they focused on the potential legal chaos of allowing state courts to decide who can be president. Kavanagh noted there is a federal law against insurrection and it bars those convicted from holding office. Trump has not been charged with violating that law.

Trump would like the high court to declare him not responsible for the violence on Jan. 6. There was little indication that would happen because the matter barely came up.

One thing that has distinguished the case is the extent of historical argument about the origins of Section 3, which has largely laid dormant since a congressional amnesty to most Confederates in 1872. Trump's main argument is that the provision isn't meant to apply to the presidency because that office isn't specifically mentioned, while senator, member of Congress and even presidential and vice presidential electors are.

The argument largely revolved around obscure issues, but Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, seemed curious. The plaintiffs have argued it would be absurd to bar people from all sorts of lower offices while leaving the most powerful one open. But Jackson, the first Black female justice, contended that the 14th Amendment was mainly about making sure “the South will not rise again” — meaning the states.

Perhaps, she continued, the provision's authors presumed that keeping insurrectionists from serving as electors would be a sufficient safeguard against an insurrectionist president. Murray noted that in the congressional debate on the provision, a senator asked why the section didn't apply to the presidency and one of its authors pointed at language intended to include that office. But it's unclear that convinced Jackson or the court.

Going into the case, the prevailing view of legal experts was the Supreme Court would keep Trump on the ballot. That sense has grown now.

What else the court decides will have major implications for both Section 3 and potentially other constitutional provisions. The justices all sounded skeptical of letting states decide Section 3.

Murray acknowledged under questioning that there's no way to bring a federal lawsuit challenging a president's qualifications, so if the court bars state action, that would end efforts to challenge Trump's place on the ballot.

If the court rules the provision doesn't apply to presidents, it could open up other sections of the Constitution such as the emoluments clause, which prohibits officials from accepting gifts from foreign countries, to new interpretation. Lawyers had attempted to apply this to Trump during his presidency but the case was rendered moot after he left office.

If the court takes the Griffin's case route, the justices could say it's up to Congress to draw up new procedures to implement Section 3. That would likely kill all Section 3 challenges for the foreseeable future because a divided Congress is unlikely to accomplish that anytime soon.

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised an unsettling possibility in her questioning of Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell.

What if, she asked, Trump is elected and a new Congress writes rules applying Section 3 to him. Would that conflict with the impeachment clause? Would it mean a reelected President Trump suddenly becomes ineligible?

Mitchell said he thought that would be legal, implying Congress could potentially remove Trump, or another president, from office.

It may be a remote possibility, but it's the sort of hypothetical that underscored another point: However much the court may want to do away with Section 3, it could come back to haunt them in a sequel.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday heard two hours of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37">historic arguments</a>&nbsp;in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">Colorado case</a>&nbsp;to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot. The justices sounded highly skeptical of the effort.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen </a>to a replay of the oral argument<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Fmr Pres. Trump: &quot;In watching the Supreme Court today I thought it was a very beautiful process. I hope that democracy in this country will continue because right now we have a very, very tough situation with all of the radical left ideas with the weaponization of politics...&quot; <a href="https://t.co/cFn0Lh7TKk">pic.twitter.com/cFn0Lh7TKk</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1755650525855420441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>It's the first time that voters have tried to block a candidate from the presidency under a once-obscure post-Civil War constitutional provision barring those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.Some takeaways from the arguments:TRUMP SEEMS LIKELY STAY ON THE BALLOTIn tone and tenor, the justices' questions challenged the notion that a state court can order a presidential contender off the ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That section bars those who engage in insurrection from holding office.The case was brought by a group of Republican and independent voters, and the state of Colorado. Their argument was rooted in the idea that states have the ability to police their own ballots and bar Trump for his role in the violent insurrection on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot stemmed from Trump's refusal to accept the results of the presidential election that the Republican lost to Democrat Joe Biden.From across the court's ideological divide, there was near consensus that the Colorado arguments were flawed.Justice Elena Kagan called the issue of determining whether someone engaged in insurrection “just more complicated and more contested and more political.” Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Jason Murray, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, about what would stop other states from citing Section 3 in taking aim at politicians they didn't like.Murray gave well-rehearsed arguments that won the day in the Colorado Supreme Court, whose 4-3 ruling that Trump was ineligible got the case to Washington. Murray contended that the Capitol riot was a once-in-history sort of event and that courts would ensure that the provision isn't abused. But that line did not not seem to persuade the justices.A WAY OUT?Section 3 presents a quandary for judges, who are reluctant to make decisions that reorder democratic elections, especially without a precedent. The provision doesn't spell out any procedures or even the meaning of “insurrection.” It just says anyone who engaged in one can't hold office.The court's best way out may be a lookback to an 1869 case known as Griffin's case. That involved a Virginia man who argued he couldn't have been convicted of a crime because the judge who heard his case was, as a former Confederate, disqualified from office under Section 3.Salmon Chase, who was then the chief justice of the Supreme Court, heard the case while acting as an appellate judge. He ruled that Congress had to create a mechanism for Section 3 to take effect. Congress did, but the measure expired in the 1940s.The justices repeatedly asked about Griffin's case. Trump's lawyers have argued it is still the only rational way for Section 3 to be applied. Chase had argued previously that Section 3 took effect automatically so the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump contended his ruling was not good law. But that line of argument clearly didn’t carry the day.JAN. 6 GETS LITTLE MENTIONThe plaintiffs wanted this case to be about Jan. 6, not Griffin’s case. That sums up their problem.They hoped for a Supreme Court affirmation that the former president did engage in insurrection and threaten the Constitution with his campaign to stay in office after his 2020 loss. But the justices weren’t going there.Instead, they focused on the potential legal chaos of allowing state courts to decide who can be president. Kavanagh noted there is a federal law against insurrection and it bars those convicted from holding office. Trump has not been charged with violating that law.Trump would like the high court to declare him not responsible for the violence on Jan. 6. There was little indication that would happen because the matter barely came up.A DIFFERENT HISTORYOne thing that has distinguished the case is the extent of historical argument about the origins of Section 3, which has largely laid dormant since a congressional amnesty to most Confederates in 1872. Trump's main argument is that the provision isn't meant to apply to the presidency because that office isn't specifically mentioned, while senator, member of Congress and even presidential and vice presidential electors are.The argument largely revolved around obscure issues, but Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, seemed curious. The plaintiffs have argued it would be absurd to bar people from all sorts of lower offices while leaving the most powerful one open. But Jackson, the first Black female justice, contended that the 14th Amendment was mainly about making sure “the South will not rise again” — meaning the states.Perhaps, she continued, the provision's authors presumed that keeping insurrectionists from serving as electors would be a sufficient safeguard against an insurrectionist president. Murray noted that in the congressional debate on the provision, a senator asked why the section didn't apply to the presidency and one of its authors pointed at language intended to include that office. But it's unclear that convinced Jackson or the court.WHAT'S NEXT?Going into the case, the prevailing view of legal experts was the Supreme Court would keep Trump on the ballot. That sense has grown now.What else the court decides will have major implications for both Section 3 and potentially other constitutional provisions. The justices all sounded skeptical of letting states decide Section 3.Murray acknowledged under questioning that there's no way to bring a federal lawsuit challenging a president's qualifications, so if the court bars state action, that would end efforts to challenge Trump's place on the ballot.If the court rules the provision doesn't apply to presidents, it could open up other sections of the Constitution such as the emoluments clause, which prohibits officials from accepting gifts from foreign countries, to new interpretation. Lawyers had attempted to apply this to Trump during his presidency but the case was rendered moot after he left office.If the court takes the Griffin's case route, the justices could say it's up to Congress to draw up new procedures to implement Section 3. That would likely kill all Section 3 challenges for the foreseeable future because a divided Congress is unlikely to accomplish that anytime soon.But Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised an unsettling possibility in her questioning of Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell.What if, she asked, Trump is elected and a new Congress writes rules applying Section 3 to him. Would that conflict with the impeachment clause? Would it mean a reelected President Trump suddenly becomes ineligible?Mitchell said he thought that would be legal, implying Congress could potentially remove Trump, or another president, from office.It may be a remote possibility, but it's the sort of hypothetical that underscored another point: However much the court may want to do away with Section 3, it could come back to haunt them in a sequel.

🎥 Trump responds to historic Supreme Court ballot ban hearing 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to a replay of the oral arguments

<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?533475-101/senators-tuberville-marshall-speak-reporters-supreme-court">Click here to watch</a> Senator Marshall's comments

In more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”

Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.

In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.

Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”

Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.

The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.

Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”

Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.

For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.

The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.

A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.

The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.

The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.

People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.

The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.

Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.

In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.

The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707486334455.png" alt="Senators Marshall and Tuberville spoke with reporters outside the Supreme Court-photo CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Senators Marshall and Tuberville spoke with reporters outside the Supreme Court-photo CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">This morning, I stood in front of the Supreme Court in solidarity with Donald J. Trump. The Biden Administration has attacked our constitutional rights time and time again. Despite the radical Left&#39;s political witch-hunt and desperate attempts to keep him off the ballot, &#39;We…&mdash; Dr. Roger Marshall (@RogerMarshallMD) <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1755669737277665529?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to a replay of the oral arguments<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?533475-101/senators-tuberville-marshall-speak-reporters-supreme-court">Click here to watch</a> Senator Marshall's commentsIn more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

🎥Marshall supports Trump as Justices hear arguments on ballot ban

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen</a> to a replay of the oral arguments

Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has begun hearing former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-UpNUmxKSc">to remain on the 2024 ballot</a>, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court, meeting Thursday, is weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices are considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday will hear former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707402813598.png" alt="Protests Thursday morning outside the U.S. Supreme Court -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Protests Thursday morning outside the U.S. Supreme Court -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen</a> to a replay of the oral argumentsIn more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has begun hearing former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-UpNUmxKSc">to remain on the 2024 ballot</a>, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.The court, meeting Thursday, is weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The case marks the first time the justices are considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday will hear former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

🎧 Supreme Court sounds broadly skeptical of efforts to kick Trump off ballot 

Tommy R. Sheldon August 29, 1940 ~ February 5, 2024

Tommy R. Sheldon, 83, of Ottawa, Kansas died Monday, February 5, 2024 at his home.

He was born August 29, 1940 in Carrollton, MO the son of Maurice Sheldon and Margaret (Atkinson) Sheldon.

On January 17, 1970, Tom was united in marriage to Pamela K. Wilson in Phoenix, AZ. They shared fifty-four years of loving marriage.

Tom was a lifelong printer working in multiple print shops over the years until he started his own business D&amp;B Print Shop, Olathe, KS in 1997. In 2006 he retired, selling the business to his son, Rob but continued to always check in on the business and was often still working and helping out up until this past year.

Tom was a true baseball enthusiast. He loved his years of coaching baseball and he loved cheering on the Kansas City Royals. He looked forward to Opening Day every year and attending games with his family. He also enjoyed golf and in his younger years he liked to bowl. He started his day with a daily devotional to God, and enjoyed listening to church services on the television and was a very giving person. He was always there to help someone in need of assistance. Most important in his life was his family, He loved being with his children, following up on his grandchildren and their adventures and he was devoted and loving caregiver to his wife Pam.

He was preceded in death by his parents, Maurice and Margaret Sheldon; daughter, Dawn Sheldon, and a son, Brad Sheldon.

Tom is survived by his wife, Pam Sheldon of the home; four children, Cathy Vohs and her husband Ronnie, Paola, KS, Mike Sheldon and his wife, Kelly, Paola, KS, Leslie Clark and her husband, Steve, Ripon, CA, Rob Sheldon and his wife, Kathy, Princeton, KS; a brother, Jeff Sheldon, Texas; ten grandchildren and nine great grandchildren.

Memorial Services are pending at this time and will be announced later. Condolences may be sent to the family through www.lamb-roberts.comor sent c/o Lamb-Roberts-Price Funeral Home, P.O. Box 14, Ottawa, KS 66067.

READ MORE:&nbsp;<a href="https://salinapost.com/posts/4d4213e9-1e3b-477e-a215-1eb8691a748b">Crossroads Marathon recognized as highest Boston Marathon qualifying rate in the state</a>

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707324012288.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>Tommy R. Sheldon August 29, 1940 ~ February 5, 2024Tommy R. Sheldon, 83, of Ottawa, Kansas died Monday, February 5, 2024 at his home.He was born August 29, 1940 in Carrollton, MO the son of Maurice Sheldon and Margaret (Atkinson) Sheldon.On January 17, 1970, Tom was united in marriage to Pamela K. Wilson in Phoenix, AZ. They shared fifty-four years of loving marriage.Tom was a lifelong printer working in multiple print shops over the years until he started his own business D&amp;B Print Shop, Olathe, KS in 1997. In 2006 he retired, selling the business to his son, Rob but continued to always check in on the business and was often still working and helping out up until this past year.Tom was a true baseball enthusiast. He loved his years of coaching baseball and he loved cheering on the Kansas City Royals. He looked forward to Opening Day every year and attending games with his family. He also enjoyed golf and in his younger years he liked to bowl. He started his day with a daily devotional to God, and enjoyed listening to church services on the television and was a very giving person. He was always there to help someone in need of assistance. Most important in his life was his family, He loved being with his children, following up on his grandchildren and their adventures and he was devoted and loving caregiver to his wife Pam.He was preceded in death by his parents, Maurice and Margaret Sheldon; daughter, Dawn Sheldon, and a son, Brad Sheldon.Tom is survived by his wife, Pam Sheldon of the home; four children, Cathy Vohs and her husband Ronnie, Paola, KS, Mike Sheldon and his wife, Kelly, Paola, KS, Leslie Clark and her husband, Steve, Ripon, CA, Rob Sheldon and his wife, Kathy, Princeton, KS; a brother, Jeff Sheldon, Texas; ten grandchildren and nine great grandchildren.Memorial Services are pending at this time and will be announced later. Condolences may be sent to the family through www.lamb-roberts.comor sent c/o Lamb-Roberts-Price Funeral Home, P.O. Box 14, Ottawa, KS 66067.READ MORE:&nbsp;<a href="https://salinapost.com/posts/4d4213e9-1e3b-477e-a215-1eb8691a748b">Crossroads Marathon recognized as highest Boston Marathon qualifying rate in the state</a>

Tommy R. Sheldon

By DAVID NORLIN LETTER TO THE EDITOR Resident of Salina

Steven Howe, Salina’s Republican 71st&nbsp;District&nbsp;representative, standing apart from other Republican statehouse reps,&nbsp;deserves&nbsp;our thanks.&nbsp; &nbsp;Why?&nbsp;&nbsp;He told the truth—that Trump lied and&nbsp;continues to lie, with one goal:&nbsp;&nbsp;to&nbsp;seize power&nbsp;unlawfully, at any cost, for his sole benefit.&nbsp;&nbsp;Howe asks, “Will Republicans. . .&nbsp;&nbsp;give in to a cult of personality, group-think,&nbsp;and&nbsp;mob mentality [undermining] the rule of law?”&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Precisely the right question, and at the&nbsp;right time.&nbsp;&nbsp;

While claiming independence of thought, he usually and immediately&nbsp;votes with Republican lock-step group-think mentality.&nbsp;&nbsp;Within&nbsp;scant days of publishing his letter,&nbsp;he voted for the grossly unfair ‘Flat tax’ proposal that leadership rammed&nbsp;through first thing&nbsp;this session.&nbsp;&nbsp;A flat&nbsp;tax that will flatten us.&nbsp;&nbsp;And fatten the&nbsp;rich.

If you try to live on $6,000/year, imagine being required to&nbsp;pay 5.25% back to the state.&nbsp;&nbsp;While you&nbsp;scrap for every last penny,&nbsp;the wealthiest 20% would rake in 70% of that tax&nbsp;cut.&nbsp;&nbsp;They’d get 2 of every 3 dollars cut&nbsp;from Kansas’ budget.&nbsp;&nbsp;Result: <a href="https://itep.org/state-rundown-1-18-state-tax-priorities-taking-shape-in-2024/">in 5&nbsp;years,&nbsp;Kansas would sink to more than half a BILLION in debt.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Sound familiar?&nbsp; &nbsp;Says Republican leadership:&nbsp;&nbsp;“We can&nbsp;afford it.”&nbsp;

<a href="https://itep.org/state-rundown-1-18-state-tax-priorities-taking-shape-in-2024/" target="_blank"></a>“Good Kansan” Charles Koch could rake in roughly $875,000 per year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Mr. Koch’s windfall would be worth over 12&nbsp;years’ of&nbsp;tax cuts for median-income ($70,000) households.&nbsp;

Is that money better spent on helping our communities&nbsp;thrive, or lining the pockets of billionaires?

Not only does Howe regularly cave to the Republican&nbsp;group-think mob mentality harming Kansans’ welfare, as a leader&nbsp;himself, in his first year as&nbsp;Chair of the Higher Education Budget Committee, he used his new power to demand&nbsp;that&nbsp;universities give a full accounting of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion&nbsp;expenses. The threat was more than&nbsp;implicit.

Now Howe magnifies this gun to the head of Kansas higher ed&nbsp;in his new bill,&nbsp;House&nbsp;Bill 2460.&nbsp;&nbsp;The bill would “prohibit&nbsp;public&nbsp;colleges and universities from including DEI as a provision for&nbsp;admission, financial aid or employment decisions.”&nbsp;&nbsp;It levies a&nbsp;$100,000 administrative penalty&nbsp;if any job-seeker feels he/she was wronged by that requirement.

<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2024/01/31/bill-restricting-dei-returns-to-kansas-legislature-amid-debate-over-ideology-pronouns/?emci=6838e9fc-a7c0-ee11-b660-002248223197&amp;emdi=3252e1bd-e8c0-ee11-b660-002248223197&amp;ceid=123513">&nbsp;It would bar any “pledge or statement regarding diversity,&nbsp;equity, inclusion, patriotism or related topics.”</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As someone whose&nbsp;loyalty oath to the USA was&nbsp;required for a federal scholarship, I’m dumbfounded.&nbsp;&nbsp;What, for heavens sake, is wrong with&nbsp;asking&nbsp;employment candidates to commit to being in favor of diversity, equity, and&nbsp;inclusion, thus making an effort to right&nbsp;what’s wrong in this country?

On its face, this is an attempt to silence fairness and&nbsp;equity in the state and country, against allowing open minds to&nbsp;investigate how&nbsp;we all participate in a system that is often non-diverse and inequitable, thus&nbsp;placing ourselves in a self-made&nbsp;prison of prejudice.&nbsp;

To Rep. Howe's credit, he is a&nbsp;respectful and willing listener.&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;true independence must go beyond&nbsp;merely urging his party away from a&nbsp;catastrophic dictator.

House Speaker Dan Hawkins’ opening session salvo was to say&nbsp;he won’t allow a vote on Medicaid expansion.&nbsp;&nbsp;“I know my&nbsp;votes,” said Hawkins. “I know the votes in the House, and I&nbsp;can tell you there is (sic) not enough votes to pass.”

One assumes this includes Steven Howe.&nbsp; &nbsp;If so, Steven, how?&nbsp;&nbsp;Please listen to diverse and inclusive voices&nbsp;for Christian&nbsp;Charity and a sensible budget.&nbsp; &nbsp;

The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Communications. The editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/2/1582312931775.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>By DAVID NORLIN LETTER TO THE EDITOR Resident of SalinaSteven Howe, Salina’s Republican 71st&nbsp;District&nbsp;representative, standing apart from other Republican statehouse reps,&nbsp;deserves&nbsp;our thanks.&nbsp; &nbsp;Why?&nbsp;&nbsp;He told the truth—that Trump lied and&nbsp;continues to lie, with one goal:&nbsp;&nbsp;to&nbsp;seize power&nbsp;unlawfully, at any cost, for his sole benefit.&nbsp;&nbsp;Howe asks, “Will Republicans. . .&nbsp;&nbsp;give in to a cult of personality, group-think,&nbsp;and&nbsp;mob mentality [undermining] the rule of law?”&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Precisely the right question, and at the&nbsp;right time.&nbsp;&nbsp;And yet.&nbsp;While claiming independence of thought, he usually and immediately&nbsp;votes with Republican lock-step group-think mentality.&nbsp;&nbsp;Within&nbsp;scant days of publishing his letter,&nbsp;he voted for the grossly unfair ‘Flat tax’ proposal that leadership rammed&nbsp;through first thing&nbsp;this session.&nbsp;&nbsp;A flat&nbsp;tax that will flatten us.&nbsp;&nbsp;And fatten the&nbsp;rich.If you try to live on $6,000/year, imagine being required to&nbsp;pay 5.25% back to the state.&nbsp;&nbsp;While you&nbsp;scrap for every last penny,&nbsp;the wealthiest 20% would rake in 70% of that tax&nbsp;cut.&nbsp;&nbsp;They’d get 2 of every 3 dollars cut&nbsp;from Kansas’ budget.&nbsp;&nbsp;Result: <a href="https://itep.org/state-rundown-1-18-state-tax-priorities-taking-shape-in-2024/">in 5&nbsp;years,&nbsp;Kansas would sink to more than half a BILLION in debt.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Sound familiar?&nbsp; &nbsp;Says Republican leadership:&nbsp;&nbsp;“We can&nbsp;afford it.”&nbsp;<a href="https://itep.org/state-rundown-1-18-state-tax-priorities-taking-shape-in-2024/" target="_blank"></a>“Good Kansan” Charles Koch could rake in roughly $875,000 per year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Mr. Koch’s windfall would be worth over 12&nbsp;years’ of&nbsp;tax cuts for median-income ($70,000) households.&nbsp;Is that money better spent on helping our communities&nbsp;thrive, or lining the pockets of billionaires?Not only does Howe regularly cave to the Republican&nbsp;group-think mob mentality harming Kansans’ welfare, as a leader&nbsp;himself, in his first year as&nbsp;Chair of the Higher Education Budget Committee, he used his new power to demand&nbsp;that&nbsp;universities give a full accounting of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion&nbsp;expenses. The threat was more than&nbsp;implicit.Now Howe magnifies this gun to the head of Kansas higher ed&nbsp;in his new bill,&nbsp;House&nbsp;Bill 2460.&nbsp;&nbsp;The bill would “prohibit&nbsp;public&nbsp;colleges and universities from including DEI as a provision for&nbsp;admission, financial aid or employment decisions.”&nbsp;&nbsp;It levies a&nbsp;$100,000 administrative penalty&nbsp;if any job-seeker feels he/she was wronged by that requirement.<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2024/01/31/bill-restricting-dei-returns-to-kansas-legislature-amid-debate-over-ideology-pronouns/?emci=6838e9fc-a7c0-ee11-b660-002248223197&amp;emdi=3252e1bd-e8c0-ee11-b660-002248223197&amp;ceid=123513">&nbsp;It would bar any “pledge or statement regarding diversity,&nbsp;equity, inclusion, patriotism or related topics.”</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As someone whose&nbsp;loyalty oath to the USA was&nbsp;required for a federal scholarship, I’m dumbfounded.&nbsp;&nbsp;What, for heavens sake, is wrong with&nbsp;asking&nbsp;employment candidates to commit to being in favor of diversity, equity, and&nbsp;inclusion, thus making an effort to right&nbsp;what’s wrong in this country?On its face, this is an attempt to silence fairness and&nbsp;equity in the state and country, against allowing open minds to&nbsp;investigate how&nbsp;we all participate in a system that is often non-diverse and inequitable, thus&nbsp;placing ourselves in a self-made&nbsp;prison of prejudice.&nbsp;To Rep. Howe's credit, he is a&nbsp;respectful and willing listener.&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;true independence must go beyond&nbsp;merely urging his party away from a&nbsp;catastrophic dictator.House Speaker Dan Hawkins’ opening session salvo was to say&nbsp;he won’t allow a vote on Medicaid expansion.&nbsp;&nbsp;“I know my&nbsp;votes,” said Hawkins. “I know the votes in the House, and I&nbsp;can tell you there is (sic) not enough votes to pass.”One assumes this includes Steven Howe.&nbsp; &nbsp;If so, Steven, how?&nbsp;&nbsp;Please listen to diverse and inclusive voices&nbsp;for Christian&nbsp;Charity and a sensible budget.&nbsp; &nbsp;The views and opinions expressed in this editorial article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Salina Post or Eagle Communications. The editorial is intended to stimulate critical thinking and debate on issues of public interest and should be read with an open mind. Readers are encouraged to consider multiple sources of information and to form their own informed opinions.

Letter to the Editor: Escaping cult culture 

PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) — A Michigan jury convicted a school shooter’s mother of involuntary manslaughter Tuesday in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/oxford-high-school-shooting">killings of four students in 2021,</a>&nbsp;making her the first parent in the U.S. to be held responsible for a child carrying out a mass school attack.

Prosecutors say Jennifer Crumbley had a duty under state law to prevent her son, who was 15 at the time, from harming others. She was accused of failing to secure a gun and ammunition at home and failing to get help to support Ethan Crumbley's mental health.

The four guilty verdicts — one for each student slain at Oxford High School — were returned after roughly 11 hours of jury deliberations.

Jennifer Crumbley, 45, looked down and shook her head slightly as each juror was polled after the verdicts were read.

On her way out of the courtroom, prosecutor Karen McDonald hugged Craig Shilling, the father of victim Justin Shilling, and the family of Madisyn Baldwin.

Jennifer and James Crumbley were the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/oxford-high-school-shooting-shootings-education-violence-crime-31b054a2e403275f119b5e919f7fbc43">first parents in the U.S.</a>&nbsp;to be charged in a mass school shooting committed by their child. James Crumbley faces trial in March.

"The cries have been heard, and I feel this verdict is gonna echo throughout every household in the country,” Craig Shilling told reporters.

“I feel it’s necessary, and I’m happy with the verdict. It’s still a sad situation to be in. It’s gotta stop. It’s an accountability, and this is what we’ve been asking for for a long time now," Shilling said.

A gag order by the judge prevented McDonald and defense attorney Shannon Smith from speaking to reporters.

On&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/michigan-school-shooting-timeline-79e4111a45567d79ffbc63acb75ba24a">the morning of Nov. 30, 2021,</a>&nbsp;school staff members were concerned about a violent drawing of a gun, bullet and wounded man, accompanied by desperate phrases, on Ethan Crumbley’s math assignment. His parents were called to the school for a brief meeting, but they didn't take the boy home.

A few hours later, Ethan Crumbley pulled a handgun from his backpack and shot 10 students and a teacher. No one had checked the backpack.

The gun was the Sig Sauer 9 mm his father had purchased with him just four days earlier. Jennifer Crumbley had taken her son to a shooting range that same weekend.

“You're the last adult to have possession of that gun,” assistant prosecutor Marc Keast said while cross-examining the mother last week. “You saw your son shoot the last practice round before the (school) shooting on Nov. 30. You saw how he stood. ... He knew how to use the gun."

Jennifer Crumbley replied, “Yes, he did."

Besides 17-year-old Justin Shilling and 17-year old Madisyn Baldwin, Hana St. Juliana, 14, and Tate Myre, 16, were also killed. Seven people were wounded.

Ethan Crumbley, now 17,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/oxford-michigan-school-shooting-ethan-crumbley-sentencing-fb10065053ca542b0d443671bab53947">pleaded guilty to murder and terrorism</a>&nbsp;and is serving a life sentence.

Jennifer Crumbley told jurors that it was her husband's job to keep track of the gun. She also said she saw no signs of mental distress in her son.

“We would talk. We did a lot of things together," she testified. "I trusted him, and I felt I had an open door. He could come to me about anything.”

In a journal found by police, Ethan Crumbley wrote that his parents wouldn’t listen to his pleas for help.

“I have zero help for my mental problems and it’s causing me to shoot up the ... school,” he wrote.

The words with the drawing that prompted a counselor to call the Crumbleys to the school said: “The thoughts won’t stop. Help me. The world is dead. My life is useless.”

Prosecutors introduced evidence that Ethan Crumbley texted his mother in spring 2021 about “demons” throwing bowls and other hallucinations. But she told the jury that it was “just Ethan messing around.”

“I have asked myself if I would have done anything differently. I wouldn’t have. I wish he would have killed us instead,” she testified.

The jury of six men and six women included people who own guns or grew up with them in their home. The jurors said they could put their opinions about guns aside and serve fairly.

Jennifer Crumbley will get credit for roughly 2 1/2 years in the county jail when she returns to court for sentencing on April 9. The judge will set the minimum prison sentence, based on scoring guidelines and other factors.

It will be up to the Michigan parole board to determine how long she actually stays in prison. The maximum term for involuntary manslaughter is 15 years.

Prosecutors have not said if they will ask for consecutive sentences on the four convictions, which could mean a maximum of 60 years if Judge Cheryl Matthews agrees.

PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) — A Michigan jury received instructions from a judge and began deliberations Monday in a novel trial against a school shooter's mother who could go to prison if convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/oxford-high-school-shooting">deaths of four students in 2021.</a>

“You must not let sympathy, bias or prejudice influence your decision,” Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews said.

Prosecutors say Jennifer Crumbley was grossly negligent when she failed to tell Oxford High School officials that the family had guns, including a 9 mm handgun that was used by her son, Ethan Crumbley, at a shooting range just a few days earlier.

The school was concerned about a macabre drawing of a gun, bullet and wounded man, accompanied by desperate phrases, on a math assignment. But Ethan was allowed to stay in school on Nov. 30, 2021, following a roughly 12-minute meeting with Jennifer and James Crumbley, who didn't take him home.

The teenager pulled the gun from his backpack in the afternoon and shot 10 students and a teacher, killing four peers. No one had checked the backpack.

“He literally drew a picture of what he was going to do. It says, ‘Help me,’” prosecutor Karen McDonald said during closing arguments Friday in suburban Detroit.

Jennifer Crumbley knew the gun in the drawing was identical to the new one at home, McDonald said.

“She knew it wasn't stored properly," the prosecutor added. “She knew that he was proficient with the gun. She knew he had access to ammunition.”

“Just the smallest steps” by Jennifer Crumbley could have saved the lives of Hana St. Juliana, Tate Myre, Justin Shilling and Madisyn Baldwin, the prosecutor said.

Defense attorney Shannon Smith told jurors that a conviction would have a chilling effect on unwitting parents whose kids break the law. The tragedy, she argued, was not foreseeable.

Ethan Crumbley was a “skilled manipulator” who didn’t have mental illness, and the gun was the responsibility of James Crumbley, not his wife, Smith said.

“Unfortunately this is a case where the prosecution made a charging decision way too fast,” Smith said. “It was motivated by obvious reasons, for political gain and done for media attention.”

She said the case won’t bring justice to the victims or their families: “It certainly doesn’t bring back any lives.”

The jury of six men and six women includes some gun owners or people who grew up with firearms in their house. They said it wouldn’t interfere with their ability to be fair.

The four students who died at Oxford High School, about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of Detroit, were Hana St. Juliana, Tate Myre, Justin Shilling and Madisyn Baldwin.

Jennifer Crumbley, 45, and James Crumbley, 47, are the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/oxford-high-school-shooting-shootings-education-violence-crime-31b054a2e403275f119b5e919f7fbc43">first parents in the U.S.</a>&nbsp;to be charged in a mass school shooting committed by their child. The latter faces trial in March.

Besides knowledge of the gun, the Crumbleys are accused of ignoring their son's mental health needs. In a journal found by police in his backpack, he wrote that they wouldn't listen to his pleas for help.

“I have zero help for my mental problems and it’s causing me to shoot up the ... school,” Ethan wrote.

The maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. The Crumbleys have been in jail for more than two years, unable to post $500,000 bond while awaiting trial.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/12/1638621694054.png" alt="Crumbley as shown in her November 2021 booking photo from Oakland Co. Michigan" />
 <figcaption>Crumbley as shown in her November 2021 booking photo from Oakland Co. Michigan</figcaption>
 </figure>PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) — A Michigan jury convicted a school shooter’s mother of involuntary manslaughter Tuesday in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/oxford-high-school-shooting">killings of four students in 2021,</a>&nbsp;making her the first parent in the U.S. to be held responsible for a child carrying out a mass school attack.Prosecutors say Jennifer Crumbley had a duty under state law to prevent her son, who was 15 at the time, from harming others. She was accused of failing to secure a gun and ammunition at home and failing to get help to support Ethan Crumbley's mental health.The four guilty verdicts — one for each student slain at Oxford High School — were returned after roughly 11 hours of jury deliberations.Jennifer Crumbley, 45, looked down and shook her head slightly as each juror was polled after the verdicts were read.On her way out of the courtroom, prosecutor Karen McDonald hugged Craig Shilling, the father of victim Justin Shilling, and the family of Madisyn Baldwin.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/12/1638551635768.png" alt="Ethan Crumbley's November 2021 booking photo from Oakland Co. Michigan" />
 <figcaption>Ethan Crumbley's November 2021 booking photo from Oakland Co. Michigan</figcaption>
 </figure>“Thank you,” a man whispered to her.Jennifer and James Crumbley were the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/oxford-high-school-shooting-shootings-education-violence-crime-31b054a2e403275f119b5e919f7fbc43">first parents in the U.S.</a>&nbsp;to be charged in a mass school shooting committed by their child. James Crumbley faces trial in March."The cries have been heard, and I feel this verdict is gonna echo throughout every household in the country,” Craig Shilling told reporters.“I feel it’s necessary, and I’m happy with the verdict. It’s still a sad situation to be in. It’s gotta stop. It’s an accountability, and this is what we’ve been asking for for a long time now," Shilling said.A gag order by the judge prevented McDonald and defense attorney Shannon Smith from speaking to reporters.On&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/michigan-school-shooting-timeline-79e4111a45567d79ffbc63acb75ba24a">the morning of Nov. 30, 2021,</a>&nbsp;school staff members were concerned about a violent drawing of a gun, bullet and wounded man, accompanied by desperate phrases, on Ethan Crumbley’s math assignment. His parents were called to the school for a brief meeting, but they didn't take the boy home.A few hours later, Ethan Crumbley pulled a handgun from his backpack and shot 10 students and a teacher. No one had checked the backpack.The gun was the Sig Sauer 9 mm his father had purchased with him just four days earlier. Jennifer Crumbley had taken her son to a shooting range that same weekend.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/12/1638621716369.png" alt="James Crumbley as shown in his 2021 booking. photo from Oakland County, Michigan" />
 <figcaption>James Crumbley as shown in his 2021 booking. photo from Oakland County, Michigan</figcaption>
 </figure>“You're the last adult to have possession of that gun,” assistant prosecutor Marc Keast said while cross-examining the mother last week. “You saw your son shoot the last practice round before the (school) shooting on Nov. 30. You saw how he stood. ... He knew how to use the gun."Jennifer Crumbley replied, “Yes, he did."Besides 17-year-old Justin Shilling and 17-year old Madisyn Baldwin, Hana St. Juliana, 14, and Tate Myre, 16, were also killed. Seven people were wounded.Ethan Crumbley, now 17,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/oxford-michigan-school-shooting-ethan-crumbley-sentencing-fb10065053ca542b0d443671bab53947">pleaded guilty to murder and terrorism</a>&nbsp;and is serving a life sentence.Jennifer Crumbley told jurors that it was her husband's job to keep track of the gun. She also said she saw no signs of mental distress in her son.“We would talk. We did a lot of things together," she testified. "I trusted him, and I felt I had an open door. He could come to me about anything.”In a journal found by police, Ethan Crumbley wrote that his parents wouldn’t listen to his pleas for help.“I have zero help for my mental problems and it’s causing me to shoot up the ... school,” he wrote.The words with the drawing that prompted a counselor to call the Crumbleys to the school said: “The thoughts won’t stop. Help me. The world is dead. My life is useless.”Prosecutors introduced evidence that Ethan Crumbley texted his mother in spring 2021 about “demons” throwing bowls and other hallucinations. But she told the jury that it was “just Ethan messing around.”“I have asked myself if I would have done anything differently. I wouldn’t have. I wish he would have killed us instead,” she testified.The jury of six men and six women included people who own guns or grew up with them in their home. The jurors said they could put their opinions about guns aside and serve fairly.Jennifer Crumbley will get credit for roughly 2 1/2 years in the county jail when she returns to court for sentencing on April 9. The judge will set the minimum prison sentence, based on scoring guidelines and other factors.It will be up to the Michigan parole board to determine how long she actually stays in prison. The maximum term for involuntary manslaughter is 15 years.Prosecutors have not said if they will ask for consecutive sentences on the four convictions, which could mean a maximum of 60 years if Judge Cheryl Matthews agrees.------------------PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) — A Michigan jury received instructions from a judge and began deliberations Monday in a novel trial against a school shooter's mother who could go to prison if convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/oxford-high-school-shooting">deaths of four students in 2021.</a>“You must not let sympathy, bias or prejudice influence your decision,” Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews said.Prosecutors say Jennifer Crumbley was grossly negligent when she failed to tell Oxford High School officials that the family had guns, including a 9 mm handgun that was used by her son, Ethan Crumbley, at a shooting range just a few days earlier.The school was concerned about a macabre drawing of a gun, bullet and wounded man, accompanied by desperate phrases, on a math assignment. But Ethan was allowed to stay in school on Nov. 30, 2021, following a roughly 12-minute meeting with Jennifer and James Crumbley, who didn't take him home.The teenager pulled the gun from his backpack in the afternoon and shot 10 students and a teacher, killing four peers. No one had checked the backpack.“He literally drew a picture of what he was going to do. It says, ‘Help me,’” prosecutor Karen McDonald said during closing arguments Friday in suburban Detroit.Jennifer Crumbley knew the gun in the drawing was identical to the new one at home, McDonald said.“She knew it wasn't stored properly," the prosecutor added. “She knew that he was proficient with the gun. She knew he had access to ammunition.”“Just the smallest steps” by Jennifer Crumbley could have saved the lives of Hana St. Juliana, Tate Myre, Justin Shilling and Madisyn Baldwin, the prosecutor said.Defense attorney Shannon Smith told jurors that a conviction would have a chilling effect on unwitting parents whose kids break the law. The tragedy, she argued, was not foreseeable.Ethan Crumbley was a “skilled manipulator” who didn’t have mental illness, and the gun was the responsibility of James Crumbley, not his wife, Smith said.“Unfortunately this is a case where the prosecution made a charging decision way too fast,” Smith said. “It was motivated by obvious reasons, for political gain and done for media attention.”She said the case won’t bring justice to the victims or their families: “It certainly doesn’t bring back any lives.”The jury of six men and six women includes some gun owners or people who grew up with firearms in their house. They said it wouldn’t interfere with their ability to be fair.The four students who died at Oxford High School, about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of Detroit, were Hana St. Juliana, Tate Myre, Justin Shilling and Madisyn Baldwin.Jennifer Crumbley, 45, and James Crumbley, 47, are the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/oxford-high-school-shooting-shootings-education-violence-crime-31b054a2e403275f119b5e919f7fbc43">first parents in the U.S.</a>&nbsp;to be charged in a mass school shooting committed by their child. The latter faces trial in March.Ethan Crumbley, now 17,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/oxford-michigan-school-shooting-ethan-crumbley-sentencing-fb10065053ca542b0d443671bab53947">pleaded guilty to murder and terrorism</a>&nbsp;and is serving a life sentence.Besides knowledge of the gun, the Crumbleys are accused of ignoring their son's mental health needs. In a journal found by police in his backpack, he wrote that they wouldn't listen to his pleas for help.“I have zero help for my mental problems and it’s causing me to shoot up the ... school,” Ethan wrote.The maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. The Crumbleys have been in jail for more than two years, unable to post $500,000 bond while awaiting trial.___

History: Mother of school shooter guilty of manslaughter

Elaine Antoinette Walters May 2, 1934 ~ February 1, 2024

A Celebration of Life for Elaine Walters, age 89, of Abilene, Kansas, will be held Saturday, February 24, at Community Bible Church, Calvin Hall (lower level west entrance), 1400 N. Cedar, Abilene, Kansas. Friends and family will be welcomed for visiting at 2:00pm with a celebration of remembrance service beginning at 3:30pm. Rev. Lindsey Brummer will officiate. Elaine passed away peacefully, with her family nearby, on February 1, 2024, at Abilene Memorial Hospital.

Elaine Antoinette Anderson was born May 2, 1934, in Lincoln, Kansas, to Anton and Esther (Troup) Anderson, the youngest of three children. Elaine grew up in Lincoln where she was baptized and confirmed at the First United Presbyterian Church. She graduated from Lincoln High School in 1952 and then attended Kansas State University.

On January 3, 1954, Elaine and Richard Walters were united in marriage at the First United Presbyterian Church in Lincoln and celebrated 62 years of marriage. They created a rich life together with a foundation of faith, family, and many lifelong friendships. Their partnership expanded as Elaine joined Rich, along with her brother and sister-in-law, in creating Anderson's, Inc. They owned Anderson's Clothing Store in Lincoln, Bon Marche in Concordia, Plaza Style Shop in Salina, and Hamburg's in Abilene, where they moved in 1972. This business partnership lasted 42 years.

Elaine was an active member of the Presbyterian Church while in both Lincoln and Abilene, serving as Sunday School Superintendent, Elder, Deacon, and choir member. She was a charter member of E.S.A. sorority in Lincoln, and a member of P.E.O. for 53 years, most recently in Chapter JQ. She volunteered at the Eisenhower Library and Abilene Memorial Hospital. She enjoyed reading and book club, the daily crossword puzzle, Scrabble, cards, cooking and baking (especially pies and her famous scotcheroo cookies), the many dogs that joined the family, and all activities involving her children and grandchildren. Elaine's gracious, kind spirit was apparent in all of her interactions, including the unconditional love she gave to her family and friends. She had the gift of hospitality, opening her home with warmth and humor, ready to be a good listener, turning attention to others rather than herself. She will be greatly missed.

Elaine is survived by her three children, daughter, Cathy (Ted) Hugghins of Fort Dodge, Iowa, son, Chris (Lisa Salsgiver) Walters of Andover, and son, David (Jodi) Walters of Abilene; seven grandchildren, Seth (Jaymie) Hugghins, Luke (Lexie) Hugghins, Hope (Zac) Hunt, Annie Walters, Hayley (Hunter) Taylor, Allie (Nathan) Ross, and Jaden (Layton) Reynolds; two great grandchildren, Hudson and Denver Hugghins, and nieces and nephews.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707232551039.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>Elaine Antoinette Walters May 2, 1934 ~ February 1, 2024 A Celebration of Life for Elaine Walters, age 89, of Abilene, Kansas, will be held Saturday, February 24, at Community Bible Church, Calvin Hall (lower level west entrance), 1400 N. Cedar, Abilene, Kansas. Friends and family will be welcomed for visiting at 2:00pm with a celebration of remembrance service beginning at 3:30pm. Rev. Lindsey Brummer will officiate. Elaine passed away peacefully, with her family nearby, on February 1, 2024, at Abilene Memorial Hospital.Elaine Antoinette Anderson was born May 2, 1934, in Lincoln, Kansas, to Anton and Esther (Troup) Anderson, the youngest of three children. Elaine grew up in Lincoln where she was baptized and confirmed at the First United Presbyterian Church. She graduated from Lincoln High School in 1952 and then attended Kansas State University.On January 3, 1954, Elaine and Richard Walters were united in marriage at the First United Presbyterian Church in Lincoln and celebrated 62 years of marriage. They created a rich life together with a foundation of faith, family, and many lifelong friendships. Their partnership expanded as Elaine joined Rich, along with her brother and sister-in-law, in creating Anderson's, Inc. They owned Anderson's Clothing Store in Lincoln, Bon Marche in Concordia, Plaza Style Shop in Salina, and Hamburg's in Abilene, where they moved in 1972. This business partnership lasted 42 years.Elaine was an active member of the Presbyterian Church while in both Lincoln and Abilene, serving as Sunday School Superintendent, Elder, Deacon, and choir member. She was a charter member of E.S.A. sorority in Lincoln, and a member of P.E.O. for 53 years, most recently in Chapter JQ. She volunteered at the Eisenhower Library and Abilene Memorial Hospital. She enjoyed reading and book club, the daily crossword puzzle, Scrabble, cards, cooking and baking (especially pies and her famous scotcheroo cookies), the many dogs that joined the family, and all activities involving her children and grandchildren. Elaine's gracious, kind spirit was apparent in all of her interactions, including the unconditional love she gave to her family and friends. She had the gift of hospitality, opening her home with warmth and humor, ready to be a good listener, turning attention to others rather than herself. She will be greatly missed.Elaine is survived by her three children, daughter, Cathy (Ted) Hugghins of Fort Dodge, Iowa, son, Chris (Lisa Salsgiver) Walters of Andover, and son, David (Jodi) Walters of Abilene; seven grandchildren, Seth (Jaymie) Hugghins, Luke (Lexie) Hugghins, Hope (Zac) Hunt, Annie Walters, Hayley (Hunter) Taylor, Allie (Nathan) Ross, and Jaden (Layton) Reynolds; two great grandchildren, Hudson and Denver Hugghins, and nieces and nephews.Elaine was preceded in death by her husband, Rich Walters in 2016, her daughter-in-law, Marcia Walters, sister, Barbara Hanefield (husband Bob), brother, Bob Anderson (wife Betty), her parents, in-laws, and several nieces and a nephew.The family thanks Dr. Brian Holmes and the staff at Memorial Hospital for their loving care of Elaine and the entire family. Cathy and Chris would like to offer special thanks to David and Jodi Walters for their devoted care and assistance given to both Rich and Elaine throughout the last years of their lives.The family chose cremation. Memorial contributions may be made to Abilene Memorial Hospital Volunteer Corps. These may be sent in care of the Martin-Becker-Carlson Funeral Home, 414 NW 3rd Street, Abilene, Kansas, 67410.