Voice For Liberty

Category: Wichita news media

  • In Wichita, bad governmental behavior excused

    In Wichita, bad governmental behavior excused

    A Wichita newspaper op-ed is either ignorant of, or decides to forgive and excuse, bad behavior in Wichita government, particularly by then-mayoral candidate Jeff Longwell.

    In a column just before the April 2015 Wichita election, Bill Wilson, managing editor of the Wichita Business Journal, reported on fallacies during the mayoral campaign, fallacies he called “glaring.” 1 But only a juvenile interpretation of the facts surrounding the events could find them fallacious. This is especially troubling since Wilson covered city hall as a reporter for the Wichita Eagle.

    The first reported fallacy concerns the award of the contract for the new Wichita airport terminal. Jeff Longwell, then a city council member, had received campaign contributions from executives of Key Construction, the local company bidding on the contract. He also received contributions from Walbridge, the Michigan partner of Key. The Walbridge contributions are problematic, as they were made just a few days before the vote. More arrived a few days after Longwell’s vote. 2

    In his column Wilson had an explanation as to why the council voted the way it did. That explanation was a matter of dispute that the council had to resolve. But the validity of the explanation is not the point. The point is something larger than any single issue, which is this: The Wichita city council was asked to make decisions regarding whether discretion was abused or laws were improperly applied. It is not proper for a council member to participate in decisions like this while the ink is still wet on campaign contribution checks from a party to the dispute. Jeff Longwell should not have voted on this matter.

    For that matter, several other council members should not have voted. Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) received substantial campaign contributions from Key Construction executives several months before he voted on the airport contract. So too did Wichita City Council Member and Vice Mayor Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) . In fact, the only contributions Williams received in 2012 were from Key Construction interests. 3

    Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer with major campaign donor Dave Wells of Key Construction.
    Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer with major campaign donor Dave Wells of Key Construction. Brewer has voted to send millions to Key, including overpriced no-bid contracts.
    Then we have Former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer. Here he’s pictured fishing with his friend Dave Wells of Key Construction. Do you think it is proper for the mayor to have voted in a quasi-judicial role on a matter worth millions to his fishing buddy? How do you feel about the mayor voting for no-bid construction contracts for his friend? Contracts that later were found to be overpriced? 4

    In Wichita, city council members receive campaign contributions while participating in a quasi-judicial proceeding involving the contributors. This doesn’t seem to be improper to the Wichita Business Journal. But it isn’t alone. The Wichita Eagle doesn’t object to any of this. Well, maybe once in a while it does, but not very strenuously or for very long.

    Another problem: Wilson dismisses the claim that Longwell was able to exert much influence over the other six council members in order to benefit a project in his council district. But during the campaign, Longwell eagerly took credit for the good things that the city council did. Though Longwell was but one of seven votes, his commercials made it seem like he performed these deeds all by himself. But when things go wrong, well, he’s just one of seven votes.

    The last fallacy Wilson objects to is this: “The idea that a $500 campaign contribution buys a vote, a specious claim by Americans for Prosperity that inexplicably lives on. If a council member’s vote is for sale for $500, their stupidity trumps their corruption. And yet some of these false claims remain in political advertising, despite being debunked by two media outlets — and here.”

    A few points: First, it’s not just a $500 contribution. We find many examples of individual $500 contributions from executives of the same company, along with spouses and other family members. The contributions are effectively stacked. Second, sometimes campaigns are funded to a large extent by these stacked contributions from just one or two firms. 5 Third, if these contributions are not seen as valuable to those who make them, why do the same small groups of business interests make the maximum contributions year after year?

    As far as the claims being debunked: A few weeks ago I showed you the inexplicably bad reporting from the Wichita Eagle. 6 The Business Journal didn’t do any better.

    Wilson’s op-ed seems more like an audition for a job at city hall than a critical look at the campaign and its issues. Making a move from news media to a government job in communications is a common career move. There are three former journalists working in Wichita city hall. One former Wichita Eagle reporter went to work for the Wichita school district. There are many examples in Topeka. It’s a problem when journalists who are supposed to be exercising watchdog duty over government agencies end up working for them. We can also recognize when journalists are auditioning for jobs in government.

  • Wichita Eagle fails readers, again

    Wichita Eagle fails readers, again

    In its coverage of the 2015 election, the Wichita Eagle prints several stories that ought to cause readers to question the reliability of its newsroom.

    Readers of the Wichita Eagle must be wondering if the newspaper trusts its own reporting. In a fact check article regarding the Wichita mayoral general election printed on March 27, the newspaper looked at claims made by campaign ads. The story examined this claim from an advertisement by Sam Williams, referring to opponent Jeff Longwell: “Supported government handouts for low-paying jobs and then chastised voters when they rejected his plan.”

    The article’s verdict on this claim: “There is no apparent reference to ‘chastising’ comments in the blog posts or article.”

    Here’s what the Eagle itself reported on September 14, 2011, regarding the possibility that citizens might petition to overturn a measure Longwell supported. I’ve emphasized a few portions.

    City council member Jeff Longwell called the petition drive “disappointing.” “We had a very transparent, open hearing, listened to both sides, listened to all of the arguments,” Longwell said. “We moved in a direction we felt was most compelling, and now you have a group that still is unhappy and it is just sour grapes. I’d argue that when they keep pulling these kinds of stunts, they will continue to lose credibility.

    The dictionary holds this definition for chastise: “To criticize severely; reprimand or rebuke.” I’d say that Longwell’s criticisms fit this definition. It’s unknown why the Eagle reporters and editors came to a different conclusion.

    This is not the only example. Here’s the start of the newspaper’s profile of Longwell:

    It’s 4:45 a.m. on a Friday, and Jeff Longwell is playing basketball with a group of guys at the Northwest YMCA. Three days a week, 10 to 15 men gather before dawn to shoot hoops. Sneakers squeak. Shouts echo. Longwell, 55, jokingly describes himself as a “prolific three-point shooter.” “I don’t think WSU is going to recruit me,” he says, worn out after the game. The guys say that if Longwell is elected mayor, he still has to play with them. He agrees. Teamwork is his style, he says, and not only in basketball.

    For the Williams profile, the article started with this:

    Sam Williams sits on a cerulean blue couch in his campaign headquarters, nervously picking at the edges. “Stuck in the Middle With You” plays on the radio as volunteers – mostly family members – make calls, urging people to vote for Williams for mayor on April 7. For a few moments, a guy who spent a lifetime in advertising has trouble articulating why he should be mayor of Wichita. “It’s uncomfortable for me having this conversation talking about me,” Williams says, still picking at the couch.

    The difference in the way the Wichita Eagle chose to portray the two candidates is startling. It’s not that there are no awkward or unflattering incidents that could be used to introduce Jeff Longwell. There are many. Likewise, there are many positive aspects to Sam Williams that could have been used in his introduction, including feats of athleticism. These two articles illustrate, in my opinion, an effort to promote Longwell and dismiss Williams.

    Wichita Eagle Building, detail
    Wichita Eagle Building, detail
    This is not the only recent incident regarding the Eagle newsroom that is troubling. In the campaign for the Wichita sales tax last year, The newspaper published a fact-check article titled “Fact check: ‘No’ campaign ad on sales tax misleading.” There was no similar article examining ads from the “Yes Wichita” group that campaigned for the sales tax. Also, there was little or no material that examined the city’s claims and informational material in a critical manner.

    It’s one thing for the opinion page to be stocked solely with liberal columnists and cartoonists, considering the content that is locally produced. But newspapers like the Eagle tell us that the newsroom is separate from the opinion page. The opinion page endorsed Jeff Longwell for mayor, just as it endorsed passage of the sales tax. As far as the newsroom goes, by failing to hold Longwell accountable for his remarks, by printing the two introductions illustrated above, and fact-checking one side of an issue and failing to produce similar pieces for the other side — well, readers are free to draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the Wichita Eagle newsroom.

  • Wichita Eagle labels hold a clue

    Wichita Eagle labels hold a clue

    How Wichita Eagle news stories label outside organizations is a window into the ideology of the paper’s newsroom.

    A Wichita Eagle op-ed references a report released by two think tanks, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and Kansas Center for Economic Growth. (Kansas tax system among the most regressive, January 18, 2015.)

    Here’s what readers can learn about the mindset of the Wichita Eagle. These organizations were named. Named and referenced without labels, adjectives, or qualifications that give readers clues about the ideology of the organizations.

    That wouldn’t be remarkable except for noticing the contrast in how the Eagle labels conservative and libertarian organizations, most notably Kansas Policy Institute. A quick use of Google finds these mentions of KPI in recent Eagle pieces:

    • “Dave Trabert, president of the Kansas Policy Institute and an outspoken advocate for conservative education reforms”
    • “The Kansas Policy Institute, a free-market think tank linked to Koch Industries”
    • “The Kansas Policy Institute, a conservative think tank”
    • “Dave Trabert, president of the Kansas Policy Institute, a conservative think tank in Wichita”
    • “The Kansas Policy Institute, a conservative think tank based in Wichita”
    • “The Kansas Policy Institute, a conservative Wichita nonprofit organization”
    • “parallel recommendations from the Kansas Policy Institute, a conservative small-government think tank”

    Always, a reference to Kansas Policy Institute includes a description of the organization’s politics. This is not inaccurate, as KPI is conservative and free-market.

    Contrast with these recent excerpts from Eagle stories:

    • “Duane Goossen is a senior fellow at the Kansas Center for Economic Growth”
    • “said Annie McKay, director of the Kansas Center for Economic Growth”
    • “The Kansas Center for Economic Growth recently surveyed districts and analyzed data from the Kansas State Department of Education”
    • “A study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that Laffer disputes”
    • “said Matt Gardner, executive director of the liberal-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy”
    • “according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which is based in Washington, D.C.”
    • “Wednesday’s report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says”

    You can see that one time the Eagle slipped and labeled ITEP as “liberal-leaning.” That’s actually a gentle characterization of ITEP, which in reality lies quite far on the left end of the political spectrum, as does Kansas Center for Economic Growth. But the use of a label shows that someone, at one time, was aware of ITEP’s politics.

    So why does the Eagle routinely label Kansas Policy Institute, but never or rarely label Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and Kansas Center for Economic Growth?

    We know the editorial page of the Eagle is liberal, favoring progressive policies of more taxes and larger government over economic freedom almost without exception. We see too that the newsroom shares the same view, as shown by the sampling of references above. Labeling a source as conservative, free-market, and linked to Koch Industries is not meant by the Eagle to be a compliment.

    A note: The two outfits the op-ed relied upon produce much content that is demonstrably wrong. The Tax Foundation has found many serious problems with the report that is the subject of the Eagle op-ed. See Comments on Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States (Second Edition). For KCEG, see Kansas school teacher cuts, student ratios.

  • Wichita Business Journal remodels, features Charles Koch interview

    Wichita Business Journal remodels, features Charles Koch interview

    wichita-business-journal-cover-2014-02-28The Wichita Business Journal has, it its own words, “reinvented” itself, and starts its new life with features on Koch Industries and an extended interview with Charles Koch.

    To get started, the weekly newspaper has made its complete digital edition available to read at no charge. Click here for access.

    The interview with Koch is wide-ranging, covering the business interests of Koch Industries and Koch’s political involvement, detailing his relationship with Americans for Prosperity. An example quote: “When you start attacking cronyism and people’s political interests, it gets nasty.”

  • What is the import of the farm bill to Kansas?

    Wheat combine on farmCorrecting the Wichita Eagle’s facts will place the importance of the farm bill to Kansas in proper perspective.

    In criticizing five of the six members of the Kansas congressional delegation for voting against the farm bill, Rhonda Holman of the Wichita Eagle editorialized this: “Five of the six members of the Kansas delegation just voted against a farm bill — a stunning abdication of leadership in a state in which agriculture is 25 percent of the economy.” (Eagle editorial: AWOL on farm bill, Wednesday, February 5, 2014)

    The Eagle editorialist didn’t specify what she meant by “percent of the economy” or where she got these figures. But the most common measure of the size of an economy is gross domestic product (GDP), and it’s easy to find.

    Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (part of the U.S. Department of Commerce) for 2012 tells us that the category “Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting” contributed $5,428 million towards the total Kansas GDP of $138,953 million. That means agriculture contributed 3.9 percent to Kansas GDP. The Eagle based its argument on a value of 25 percent, a value that’s 6.4 times the actual value.

    If you included the category “Food and beverage and tobacco product manufacturing” you’d add a few additional percentage points. But you’d still have a number that is just a fraction of what the Eagle editorial board believes to be the contribution of agriculture to the Kansas economy.

    Now that you have the facts that the Wichita Eagle doesn’t have, how important do you think is the farm bill to Kansas?

    Besides this, the Eagle praised former U.S. Senator Bob Dole for his “effort to bind rural and urban interests in agricultural policy by including food stamps in the nation’s safety net for farmers.” In political science this is called logrolling. It’s one of the reasons why government continues to grow faster than our willingness to pay for it. I think the Wichita Eagle likes that.

    It’s for things like this that Dan Mitchell created the “Bob Dole Award” for Misguided Conservatives. It’s for those who fit this description:

    “If you say something about fiscal policy and a statist can respond by saying “I agree, so let’s raise taxes,” then you’ve made the mistake of focusing on red ink rather than the real problem of too much government spending.”

    Mitchell explains the naming of the award:

    Naming the award after Bob Dole also is appropriate since he was never a sincere advocate of limited government. The Kansas lawmaker was a career politician who said in his farewell speech that his three greatest achievements were a) creating the food stamp program, b) increasing payroll taxes, and c) imposing the Americans with Disabilities Act (no wonder I wanted Clinton to win in 1996).

    For all of these reasons, and more, no real conservative should want to win an award linked to Bob Dole.

  • Fired KAKE reporter on Joseph Ashby Show

    Today former KAKE Television news reporter Jared Cerullo appeared on the Joseph Ashby Show. Audio is here or below.

    Additional background on this matter is at KAKE Viewers Say Reporter Was Fired, Express Their Anger on Station’s Facebook Page.

    There’s also this story: Wichita mayor said to be ‘under lockdown.’ At this point it is not known whether there is any connection between this story and Cerullo’s departure from KAKE.

  • Joseph Ashby on local news media, anti-conservative bias

    Wichita city hall logoLast week KAKE Television news anchor Jeff Herndon addressed the Wichita Pachyderm Club. Today, on the Joseph Ashby Show, the host commented on Herndon’s views on Wichita news media, and drew some conclusions about anti-conservative bias in Wichita news media.

    [powerpress url=”http://wichitaliberty.org/audio/joseph-ashby-show-2013-05-23-excerpt.mp3″]Joseph Ashby Show, May 23, 2013 (excerpt).

    The KAKE Television news story referred to is Wichita mayor comes under scrutiny for controversial vote.

  • Wichita Eagle quality control could use improvement

    When presented with evidence of errors in its stories, the Wichita Eagle, Kansas’ largest newspaper, is not being responsive in correcting its errors.

    On July 12, the Eagle ran the story 84th District race a repeat for 2 candidates, highlighting the two Democratic Party candidates for a Kansas House of Representatives district. The article said there was no Republican filer, when in fact Dan Heflin had filed as a Republican. This could be seen clearly at either the Kansas Secretary of State’s listing of candidates, or at the Sedgwick County Election Office’s listing.

    The article was written by “courtney looney,” a name I wasn’t familiar with at the Eagle. I couldn’t find an email address or telephone number, so I couldn’t contact the reporter directly. I, and one other person, left a comment to the story calling attention to the error. As of today, the error is still in the story. I couldn’t find evidence of a correction.

    In another example, on August 10 the Wichita Eagle printed the story Kansas’ justice-selection process unique, in which the reporter wrote: “Changing the constitution requires a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate and approval of the governor. Then the issue goes to voters during a general election.”

    The process is described correctly except for the role of the governor. Unlike regular legislation, the governor does not sign or approve a constitutional amendment. The only parties involved are the legislature and the people voting on the amendment in an election.

    In this case, I knew the identity of the reporter, so I sent an email message about this error. A comment writer called attention to the error, too. I never got a response, and the story still appears on the Wichita Eagle website with the error intact. Finally, on August 17 the Eagle printed a correction.

    The story was printed in the Lawrence Journal-World under an Associated Press byline, and the error was there, too. The story may have been printed in other newspapers.

    For a final example, on August 11 the Eagle printed the story Wichita City Council OKs tax districts, in which the reporter wrote: “The approval means the hotel can charge an extra cent or two of sales tax for up to 22 years, with the revenue rebated to them after the state and city remove 7 percent in administrative fees. That will mean about $9.6 million in revenue from the extra sales tax for the $12 million hotel.”

    John Todd, a friend of mine with an interest in this issue, called me and asked me if it was true that the extra sales tax this hotel can charge through the Kansas Community Improvement District program would be worth $9.6 million over 22 years as reported. I said no, the CID is just one part of a package of subsidies the city created for this project, with the total package being worth $9.6 million or thereabouts. The total package is reported on at Waterwalk hotel deal breaks new ground for Wichita subsidies.

    A simple back-of-the-napkin calculation can confirm this, using publicly available sources of data: The hotel may have up to 130 rooms. A study commissioned by the city regarding this hotel found that “In 2008, the proposed Fairfield Inn’s competitive set’s average daily rate was $86.31.” In January, Goody Clancy, the firm planning the revitalization of downtown Wichita, said that Wichita hotels are doing well with an occupancy rate of about 67 percent, with a companion chart showing downtown hotels at about 70 percent.

    Doing the arithmetic (130 rooms times $86.31 daily rate times 365 days per year times 70 percent occupancy factor times two percent CID tax rate) results in about $57,336 in revenue per year from the CID tax. Or over the 22 year life of the CID, about $1.3 million. It’s possible the hotel might generate additional CID revenue through sales of drinks or other incidentals, but this would likely be a small amount.

    Even if one disputes the assumptions and substitutes a higher room rate or occupancy factor, there’s no way the CID will come close to generating the revenue the Eagle article reports.

    Todd called the reporter, and the reporter was insistent that the reported figures are correct, saying he received them from Wichita economic development director Allen Bell. I think this means we shouldn’t expect a correction.

    It’s part of human nature to make mistakes. I do, and when I do, often I get an email from someone at the Wichita Eagle notifying me of such. When I realize I have made a mistake, I correct it, as can be seen in this example.

    But the Wichita Eagle isn’t doing the same in a timely manner, and sometimes not at all.

    It’s not as though I’m disagreeing with opinions presented in editorials on the opinion page (and people in Wichita have enough trouble with those). The problems here are with facts that can easily be verified. In particular, when the Eagle mistakenly reports the governor’s role in amending the constitution, and then doesn’t quickly issue a correction and leaves the erroneous story on its website, I think we have a problem.

  • Wichita Eagle editorial endorsements: helpful, or not?

    Yesterday’s primary election in Kansas provided a measure of the influence of the Wichita Eagle editorial board. Voters ignored many of its endorsements, indicating that the newspaper — its editorial side, at least — is increasingly out of touch with its readers.

    Starting from the top, here’s how the Eagle endorsed and what the voters did. An endorsement is a recommendation to voters, and not intended to be a prediction of the outcome.

    For the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate, the Eagle endorsed Jerry Moran. He won. For the Democratic Party side of this race, the Eagle picked Kansas Senator David Haley. He finished in third place.

    For the Republican party nomination for United States Congress from the Kansas first district, the Eagle picked Kansas Senator Jim Barnett, noting his “balanced legislative record.” The Eagle dismissed challenger Kansas Senator Tim Huelskamp, calling him a “hard-right conservative with a hard edge.” This race was in a three-way tie in the last poll, but voters chose Huelskamp with 35 percent of the vote to Barnett’s 25 percent and Tracey Mann’s 21 percent.

    (There is a pattern here. According to the Eagle editorial board, conservatives are “hard,” while liberals are portrayed as soft and cuddly — or “balanced” and “nuanced,” at least.)

    For the Republican party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district, the Eagle chose Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf. This had the potential to be a close race, with some polls — her own, mostly — showing Schodorf in the lead. But the race turned out to be not close, with Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo gathering 39 percent of the vote to Schodorf’s 24 percent and Wichita businessman Wink Hartman‘s 23 percent.

    On the Democratic side, the Eagle endorsed Kansas Representative Raj Goyle, and he won handily over a little-known and inexperienced challenger with no experience in elective office.

    For the Republican party nomination for Kansas Governor, the Eagle endorsed Sam Brownback, whose only competition was from a candidate with some very peculiar beliefs. Brownback won handily.

    For Kansas Secretary of State Democratic Party nomination, the Eagle backed appointed incumbent Chris Biggs over opponent Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, who the Eagle faintly praised for his “out-of-the-box thinking and independence.” Biggs won.

    On the Republican side, the Eagle endorsed career bureaucrat Elizabeth Ensley over Kris Kobach. The Eagle — Rhonda Holman, mostly — has criticized Kobach steadily on the editorial page for his contention that voter fraud is a problem in Kansas. Voters overwhelmingly chose Kobach. He got 51 percent of the vote to Ensley’s 27 percent.

    For Republican Party nomination for Attorney General, the Eagle chose Kansas Senator Derek Schmidt, and he won handily over the capable but little-known Ralph De Zago.

    For Republican Party nomination for insurance commissioner, the Eagle chose incumbent Sandy Praeger, and she easily won.

    Sedgwick County Commission voters ignored Eagle recommendations

    In primary contests for Sedgwick County Commission, voters didn’t give much weight to Wichita Eagle endorsements.

    In the contest for the Democratic Party nomination for District 1, Eagle-endorsed Betty Arnold won. She’ll face unopposed incumbent Dave Unruh in the general election in this heavily Republican district.

    In District 4, two Republicans ran to replace Kelly Parks, who chose not to seek re-election. The Eagle endorsed Lucy Burtnett, who served two years in this position when she was appointed by the precinct committee system to replace Carolyn McGinn, who won election to the Kansas Senate. When Burtnett ran for election to that position in 2006, she did not win. Instead of backing the Republican primary winner, she ran a write-in campaign that had the potential to contribute to a possible Republican loss.

    Despite her loss in 2006, the Eagle endorsed her over Richard Ranzau, praising her “thoughtful” voting record, which I — after looking at her past votes — characterized as thoughtless. Ranzau won with 55 percent of the vote to Burtnett’s 44 percent. She told the Wichita Eagle that she will not support Ranzau in the general election, which naturally leads to speculation as to whether she’ll run another write-in campaign.

    For the Democratic party nomination for the position, the Eagle endorsed former Wichita city council member Sharon Fearey. From the council bench, Fearey had blasted the Eagle for uncovering problems with a real estate developer’s past dealings, blocking passage of a project she supported. Besides the editorial board endorsement, the Eagle also ran a last-minute news story embarrassing to her opponent, Kansas Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau. As of now, Faust-Goudeau has won by a margin of 60 votes out of 3,450 cast.

    In District 5, the Eagle endorsed Chuck Warren in a three-way race for the Republican Party nomination. Wichita city council member Jim Skelton won with 42 percent of the vote to Warren’s 36 percent.

    Kansas House of Representatives endorsements

    In an open seat in the Kansas House of Representatives, the Eagle endorsed Jim Howell for the 82nd district, which is primarily the city of Derby. He won.

    In the Republican party primary for Kansas House of Representatives district 83, parts of east Wichita, veteran legislator Jo Ann Pottorff faced a challenge from the right in recent college graduate Kyle Amos. Pottorff had to run a last-minute ad in the Eagle attempting to burnish her conservative credentials. She won with 53 percent of the vote. This qualifies as a squeaker.

    In Kansas House of Representatives district 94, parts of west Wichita, the Eagle chose to endorse a challenger to incumbent Joe McLeland in the Republican primary. The Eagle criticized him as a “yes-man for GOP leadership and anti-tax think tanks” and said he “parroted misleading information about school budgets during the past session.” McLeland won with 63 percent of the vote. His two challengers received 22 percent and 16 percent.

    In the Republican Party primary for Kansas House of Representatives district 96, parts of south Wichita, the Eagle endorsed first-term incumbent Phil Hermanson, and he won.

    The Eagle recommended that voters chose incumbent Gail Finney in the Democratic Party primary for the 84th district, and she won by a large margin.

    For election results from races in Sedgwick County, click on August 3rd, 2010 Primary Election Unofficial Results — Sedgwick County. For statewide races and other races, click on 2010 unofficial primary election results at Kansas Secretary of State.