Kelly vetoes school recess mandate, agritourism exemption citing local control
The governor rejected both Republican-backed bills as legislative overreach, arguing local boards and municipalities are better equipped to govern their communities.
TOPEKA, Kan. — Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, vetoed a pair of Republican-backed bills Monday that would have mandated daily elementary school recess and exempted certain agritourism businesses from local building codes. Kelly struck down both measures as legislative overreach, arguing they infringe on local control.
Kelly vetoed House Bill 2763, which passed the Legislature with votes of 74-47 in the House and 29-10 in the Senate. The legislation would have required Kansas elementary schools to provide at least 30 minutes of daily recess, prohibited teachers from withholding recess as a disciplinary measure, and mandated an annual state fitness test. Kelly said she supports the policies but rejected the statutory mandate to protect the constitutional authority of the elected State Board of Education.
Instead, Kelly announced state education agencies will implement the measures administratively, bypassing the Legislature. The State Board of Education and the Kansas State Department of Education agreed to reaffirm the 30-minute recess recommendation directly with school districts and will roll out the fitness test once federal guidance arrives for the Rural Health Transformation grant program.
The governor also vetoed Senate Substitute for House Bill 2111, which would have shielded registered agritourism operations from local building codes and regulatory enforcement. The bill cleared the House 71-49 and the Senate 27-13. In her veto message, Kelly criticized the legislation as an irresponsible measure requested by a "single entity and rammed through the legislative process at the last minute," rather than a broad industry request.
Kelly framed the dual vetoes as a consistent defense of local decision-makers against statewide mandates. She warned the agritourism exemption could have far-reaching consequences, arguing that city and county governments — not state lawmakers — are best positioned to partner with businesses while protecting public health and safety.
Brought to you by
Found a mistake? Have a news tip or feedback to share? Contact our newsroom using the button below:
