The legal fight over the effort to recall Bourbon County Clerk Susan Walker has taken a new turn: the three members of the recall committee, after being dropped from the lawsuit, are now asking the judge to let them back in as a group. On June 9 they filed a motion to intervene, along with a request to throw Walker’s lawsuit out entirely.

This is the latest step in a case we have been following. For the fuller background — how the lawsuit started and how the committee members came to be dismissed — see our earlier story: Walker v. Crux Update: Recall Committee Dismissed, Member Fights Back.

Key events

• A petition is being circulated to recall Walker from office. It points to mistakes on the USD 235 (Uniontown) school board ballots in the November 2025 election.
• Walker sued, asking a court to rule that the recall petition does not meet the legal requirements, which would stop it from going to a vote. She first named County Attorney James Crux and the three recall committee members as defendants: Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby.
• She later narrowed her lawsuit to drop the three committee members and proceed only against Crux. The judge dismissed them from the case. Wagner then asked the judge to undo that dismissal.

What’s new (June 5–9)

• June 5 — Walker’s attorney filed a response opposing Wagner’s request to undo the dismissal. Her argument, in plain terms: dropping the committee members was proper, and if they want back in, the right way is to ask to “intervene” — formally join the case — not to reverse the dismissal.
• June 9 — That is exactly what they did. All three committee members, now represented by Wichita attorney Patrick B. Hughes, filed a motion to intervene under K.S.A. 60-224, the state law on joining a lawsuit. They argue they are “necessary parties” — people the case cannot fairly be decided without — under K.S.A. 60-219, because the case asks the court to decide whether their recall petition is valid. County Attorney Crux, they say, cannot stand in for them — his role is separate, and a ruling without them could leave Crux facing conflicting court orders later on.
• If the judge lets them back into the case, they also want to throw Walker’s lawsuit out under K.S.A. 60-5320, the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act, and to make Walker pay their attorney fees. That law — often called an “anti-SLAPP” law — lets people who are sued over protected speech or petition activity ask a court to dismiss the case early. They included a copy of that motion with their June 9 filing.

Underneath the legal back-and-forth is a factual dispute about what happened with the November 2025 ballots. Neither side disputes that about 50 of the USD 235 school board ballots used during early voting were printed wrong, but they do disagree about whether Walker acted fast enough to fix them.

The recall committee’s petition, which Kansas requires the petitioners swear are true,  says Walker “caused to be printed and distributed incorrect ballots,” and that even though the problem was “brought to her attention by multiple individuals during the early voting period,” she did not correct it promptly and new, correct ballots were not printed until the night before Election Day.

However, in Walker’s sworn court petition, she says she “took immediate action to cure the ballot error”: within about four hours she and her staff set up a corrected election with the county’s voting-machine vendor, and, working into the early morning of Election Day, printed roughly 2,600 new ballots before voters went to the polls. In a written statement she released to the public, she added that her office received only one complaint just before early voting ended on Nov. 3, 2025 and that a review of two weeks of her office’s phone records turned up no earlier complaint. She points to the state law requiring that ballot mistakes be “corrected without delay” (K.S.A. 25-604) and says she did exactly that once she knew about the error.

It is worth being clear that none of these filings is asking the court to decide on the conflicting sworn statements. As the committee’s own filing puts it, whether Walker’s explanation is convincing is “a question for the voters, not the court.” The judge’s job at this stage is narrower: to decide whether the recall petition meets the legal requirements to move forward, such as stating valid grounds. Under K.S.A. 25-4302, “failure to perform duties prescribed by law” is one of the grounds Kansas law allows for a recall.

On June 9 the court also granted a 14-day extension giving County Attorney Crux until June 23 to formally respond to Walker’s lawsuit. The judge has not yet ruled on Wagner’s request to undo the dismissal, on the committee’s request to rejoin, or on the underlying question of whether the recall petition is legally sufficient. No hearing date had been set as of this writing.

Being named in a lawsuit is not a finding of wrongdoing, and the filings described here reflect each party’s arguments, not the court’s conclusions. FortScott.biz will continue to follow the case.

Fort Scott, Kansas — Bourbon County Clerk Susan Walker filed a lawsuit in Bourbon County District Court on May 22, 2026, asking a judge to stop the recall petition currently being circulated against her. The case, Walker v. Crux et al. (BB-2026-CV-000048), names Bourbon County Attorney James Crux and the three members of the recall committee — Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby — as defendants. Hon. Richard M. Fisher Jr. is assigned to the case.

Walker also filed an emergency motion asking the court to halt signature-gathering immediately while the case is decided.

What Walker is arguing

Her 28-page lawsuit makes two main arguments:

1. The county attorney never officially signed off on the version of the petition being circulated. Under K.S.A. 25-4322(b), the county attorney has to review any recall petition and notify the official, the recall committee, and the county election officer in writing before signatures can be collected. Walker says Crux did that for the first draft (see his letter on April 27, 2026) but not for the amended version.
2. The reasons listed don’t legally qualify as grounds for a recall. Under K.S.A. 25-4302, a Kansas official can only be recalled for a felony conviction, “misconduct in office,” or “failure to perform duties prescribed by law.” Walker argues the petition is too vague to meet the standard Kansas courts have set in earlier recall cases.

What’s the recall about?

The recall traces back to an error on early-voting ballots for the November 4, 2025 general election. According to Walker, USD 235 (Uniontown school district) had not told the Clerk’s office which of three “voting plans” (A, B, or C, under K.S.A. 72-1083) it wanted to use for its school board race. The clerk’s office printed ballots under Plan C when the correct plan was Plan B. By the time the mistake was caught, 52 early voters had cast incorrect ballots. Walker laid out her account in a May 10 statement on FortScott.biz.

What both sides agree on

Both sides agree on the core error: the USD 235 early-voting ballots were wrong, and Walker’s office printed corrected ballots in time for Election Day. Walker’s lawsuit adds (and the recall side does’t dispute) that the election was then certified. No formal challenge was filed regarding the results of the election.

Where they disagree

When Walker found out — and how fast she responded. This is the heart of the recall. The previous no-confidence vote said the ballots were wrong “despite timely notifications from affected residents… while advance voting was actively underway,” and the recall petition echoes it almost word for word: the problem was “brought to her attention by multiple individuals during the early voting period.” Both imply Walker was aware of the issue and chose not to act for some time. Walker tells it differently. Her May 10 statement says the first notification was a call “before 12:00 PM on November 3” — the day before the election. Her lawsuit puts the first call at exactly 9:51 a.m. She says she began fixing the problem immediately, as K.S.A. 25-604(c) requires (“corrected without delay”). Neither the petition nor the no-confidence letter names dates, people, or specifies a timeline for the earlier complaints; Walker says she has a record of the November 3 call.

FortScott.biz contacted Bourbon County Republican party to see if they had any supporting information or evidence for the version of the timeline from the no confidence vote. The chairperson responded with this statement:

The issue that my precinct committeemen and women are focused on is that the wrong ballots were distributed.

(FortScott.biz also reached out to the households of Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby via Facebook messenger asking if they had any information or evidence to support their statements in the recall petition that are disputed by the clerk. Mr. Owenby gave the query a thumbs up, but no other response was received before this article was published.)

Whether this legally counts as “failure to perform duties.” The petition says yes: Walker “caused to be printed and distributed incorrect ballots,” didn’t fix it quickly enough, and made statements “later contradicted by testimony from the school superintendent.” Walker says no: USD 235 failed to certify its voting plan, and she fixed the resulting ballot error as soon as she was notified they intended to use a different plan.

Whether the county attorney has signed off on the current petition. Walker says Crux’s April 27 letter only reviewed the first draft and that the amended version needs a new written determination. But that letter actually ruled on the two grounds separately finding “failure to perform duties” sufficient and “misconduct” insufficient. Crux told the committee, “Only the sufficient reasons for recall should be contained on the petition.” The amended petition does exactly that: it drops “misconduct” and keeps “failure to perform duties.” Whether Crux’s existing determination carries over as approval, or whether the amendment requires a fresh K.S.A. 25-4322(b) letter, is one of the questions for the court.

Whether the petition is specific enough. Kansas court rulings — Reynolds v. Figge, Baker v. Gibson, Unger v. Horn, and Cline v. Tittel — say a recall petition must state its grounds in 200 words or fewer (K.S.A. 25-4320) and specifically enough for the official to respond to (K.S.A. 25-4329). The recall petition’s key allegation reads: “The improper preparation, verification, and distribution of official ballots demonstrate a failure to perform the duties required of the office of County Clerk acting as County Election Officer under Chapter 25 of the Kansas Statutes.” Walker argues that allegation fails the specificity test. As her lawsuit explains on page 13:

“K.S.A. Chapter 25 includes forty-seven separate articles with hundreds of statutes containing thousands of subsections. Defendant Recall Committee must be more specific in its petition if they wish to allege violating a statute as grounds for recall. They could, for instance, cite to specific statutes as Defendant Crux did in his letter evaluating the first proposed recall petition. … There, Defendant Crux says, K.S.A. §§ 25-604(a) and 25-2303(a) are duties of the County Election Officer. Such specificity is nowhere in the Recall Petition, as it must be.”

In other words, Walker argues the petition must meet the same specificity standard Crux himself applied when he reviewed it.

Whether “misconduct” is still being alleged. The first draft used the word “misconduct.” Crux’s April 27 letter found “nothing in the petition supports this allegation.” The amended petition drops the word but keeps the same allegations. Walker says the misconduct claim is therefore still being made, just relabeled.

What this lawsuit does and doesn’t decide

According to  K.S.A. 25-4325, the recall committee and people circulating the petition swear, under penalty of perjury, that the claims are true, but the claims do not have to be proven true in court for a recall to move forward. The law leaves the truth of the allegations to the voters. The only way to stop a recall petition in court is to show that it is legally invalid — not to show that its accusations are false.

That is the kind of challenge Walker has brought. She disputes several of the petition’s factual claims, but her lawsuit does not ask the court to decide whether they are true. It argues the petition is procedurally and legally insufficient: that the county attorney never issued the determination K.S.A. 25-4322(b) requires for the circulating version, and that its grounds are too vague and too disconnected from her actual duties. Kansas courts have drawn this line clearly. In Baker v. Gibson (1995), the Court of Appeals held that “the truth or falsity of the grounds must still be determined by the electorate, not the county or district attorney” — the very sentence Crux quoted in his April 27 letter, where he wrote that he reviewed the petition “assuming the facts are true,” not checking whether they were. Cline v. Tittel (1995) drew the same distinction, holding that the county or district attorney decides a petition’s legal sufficiency but “does not determine whether the grounds asserted should subject the local officer to recall.”

What the county attorney does decide is legal sufficiency: whether the petition alleges one of the three statutory grounds, states it specifically enough for the official to answer, and follows the required steps. If the court sides with Walker on any of those, it could block the petition without ever ruling on what she knew, when she knew it, or how fast she acted.

Timeline

• October–November 3, 2025 — Early voting underway. Walker says her first notification of the ballot problem came November 3; the recall side says residents notified her earlier.
• November 3–4, 2025 — Corrected ballots printed overnight; election held November 4.
• April 10, 2026 — Bourbon County GOP votes no confidence in Walker.
• April 22–27, 2026 — Recall committee files first draft of petition with Crux.
• April 27, 2026 — Crux issues his written determination: petition can proceed on “failure to perform duties,” not on “misconduct.”
• Early May 2026 — Recall committee files amended petition dropping “misconduct.”
• May 10, 2026 — FortScott.biz reports the amended petition has been filed; Walker issues her statement.
• May 22, 2026 — Walker files her lawsuit and emergency motion.

What Walker is asking for

She wants the court to declare the amended petition invalid and block signature-gathering, any recall election, and certification of any results. Her emergency motion, filed under K.S.A. 60-903, argues the ongoing recall is doing harm to her reputation that can’t be undone later. Walker is represented by Jonathan L. Ehrlich, Joshua A. Ney, and Wyatt Hoagland of KN Law Group in Olathe. No defense attorneys had appeared as of filing.

What happens next

Three things are in motion at once:

• The emergency motion. Judge Fisher can grant or deny it without first hearing from the defendants, but only if he finds Walker is being immediately harmed. This is the soonest milestone: if granted, signature collection stops while the case plays out; if denied, signatures keep being collected.
• The main lawsuit. The four defendants have been served and typically have 21 days to respond. Expect motions to dismiss and a hearing schedule over the coming weeks.
• The signature window. Under K.S.A. 25-4324, a recall committee has 90 days to gather the required signatures, and that clock starts when the committee receives the county attorney’s written notice that the grounds are sufficient. The only such notice in the record is Crux’s April 27 letter on the first petition, which would put the deadline on or about July 26, 2026. Walker’s lawsuit argues the amended petition now being circulated never received its own sufficiency notice, so when — or whether — a valid 90-day clock started is itself one of the disputed questions. Unless the court intervenes, signature-gathering continues.

Being named in a lawsuit is not a finding of wrongdoing; defendants may respond and contest the claims. FortScott.biz will continue to follow the case.

A bitcoin mining operation in rural northwest Bourbon County has been a recurring subject at county commission meetings since October 2025, prompting noise complaints from neighbors, two county moratoriums, a county-wide noise resolution, an unsuccessful proposal for a much broader business moratorium, several opinion pieces, and a private civil lawsuit. This is a chronological summary of the publicly documented events to date.

October 6, 2025 — First commission discussion of bitcoin mining noise

Resident Dereck Ranes brought noise complaints to the Bourbon County Commission about natural-gas generators powering a bitcoin mining operation near his property. Ranes asked the commission for a moratorium and a noise resolution. Neighbors Kimberly Sparks and Jill Franklin also addressed commissioners about noise and vibration. Sheriff Bill Martin said his department was investigating but that enforcement of any noise rule would require county-hired personnel, since the sheriff’s office is not a code-enforcement agency. The commission agreed to continue the discussion and work on a draft moratorium. (story)

October 14, 2025 — Commission unanimously passes a 12-month moratorium on cryptocurrency mining

At its October 14 meeting the commission voted unanimously to pass a 12-month moratorium specifically directed at cryptocurrency mining. Commissioner David Beerbower moved to adopt the resolution; Commissioner Samuel Tran questioned whether the regulation would expose the county to litigation but supported it after Beerbower clarified that the moratorium targeted cryptocurrency mining only, not natural-gas extraction. County Counselor Bob Johnson told the commission that a moratorium applies only to new activity (not existing operations) and that the typical purpose is to give the planning commission time to develop more comprehensive rules. The text was to be published and signed at the next meeting. (story)

October 20, 2025 — Continued discussion; “cease-and-desist” requested

At the October 20 meeting Dereck Ranes thanked the commission for the moratorium but asked for a cease-and-desist directed at the existing operation, saying the noise was causing headaches and ear pain. Commissioner Beerbower asked all commissioners to begin formulating parameters for a county noise resolution, separate from the cryptocurrency moratorium, that would address volume and duration without targeting any specific industry. The noise resolution was added to the November 10 agenda. (story)

October 23, 2025 — Special meeting; proposed noise ordinance presented

At a special commission meeting on October 23, 2025, a proposed noise ordinance was presented for the first time. The draft would establish decibel limits for different zoning areas, define noise violations, and assign enforcement to the sheriff’s department. Commissioners discussed decibel levels, exemptions for agricultural operations, and enforcement mechanisms, and agreed to bring the ordinance back at the next regular meeting after legal review. (special-meeting story · text of the proposed ordinance as presented)

October 27, 2025 — Commission continues noise resolution discussion

Commissioner David Beerbower read a prepared statement and recommended the matter be referred to the planning commission rather than handled by the county commission directly. Commissioners Mika Milburn-Kee and Samuel Tran agreed that the planning commission should formulate the ordinance, with Tran noting that the language in the current draft could be considered zoning, which is outside the commission’s direct authority. Derek Ranes spoke during public comment, describing the noise from the bitcoin mining generator as continuous and unlike intermittent noises. County Counselor Bob Johnson warned about the legal implications of enforcement and selective prosecution. Sheriff Bill Martin reiterated that his department cannot enforce a noise resolution and suggested that a code-enforcement officer would have to be hired. (story)

November 3, 2025 — Work session on the proposed noise ordinance

Commissioner Samuel Tran reported a decibel reading of 58 dB at the gate of the bitcoin mining property — lower than earlier readings — though Commissioner David Beerbower noted that the sheriff’s department recorded higher readings later. Tran raised concerns about enforceability and the potential breadth of the proposed resolution. Beerbower continued working on the resolution and said the planning commission could later repeal or amend it as needed. (story)

November 11, 2025 — Evotech representatives appear before commission

Attorney Ty Patton of Trip, Wolf and Garrison (Wichita) and Adam Couch, one of the owners of Evolution Technology, LLC (operating as Evotech), addressed the commission. They explained that the operation:

• consists of two shipping containers of computers powered by an on-site natural-gas generator (not the electrical grid),
• produces approximately 1 megawatt,
• runs around the clock, and
• registers 55–77 dB at the site entrance, according to readings the sheriff’s office had taken at different times of day.

Patton said Evotech had added noise-mitigation fencing and that further mitigation would cost between $75,000 and $100,000. Nearby residents Derek Ranes, David Ranes, and Charlotte O’Hara expressed concerns about noise, vibration, and the possibility that similar operations could be sited on other abandoned gas wells in the county. (story)

November 17, 2025 — Planning Commission’s broader moratorium proposal tabled

The agenda packet for the November 17 commission meeting included a recommendation from the Bourbon County Planning Commission for a moratorium that would have required all new non-agricultural commercial or industrial businesses in unincorporated areas of the county to obtain a special use permit from the commission before operating. The commission voted unanimously to table the recommendation. The narrower bitcoin-mining moratorium from October 14 remained the only moratorium on the books at that point.

December 15, 2025 — Commission adopts Resolution 50-25 (Noise Limitations); narrower industrial moratorium directed for drafting

On a 2-1 vote, the commission adopted Resolution 50-25, “Noise Limitations in Unincorporated Areas of Bourbon County, Kansas.” Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee voted against. The resolution prohibits “loud, unnecessary, or unusual” noise near residences and adopts EPA guidelines for measurement. The thresholds it identifies are noise exceeding 70 dB for a 24-hour duration, 55 dB outdoors and 45 dB indoors between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and 45 dB outdoors and 35 dB indoors between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. — measured within 75 feet of the source as prima facie evidence of a violation. The resolution assigns enforcement to the commission or its designee and sets a maximum fine of $500 per day per offense.

At the same meeting the commission directed the county counselor to draft a narrower moratorium covering utility-level power generation, energy storage, cryptocurrency mining, data centers, and waste disposal. (story · Resolution 50-25 (PDF))

January 5, 2026 — Commission unanimously approves Resolution 07-26 (180-day industrial moratorium)

At the January 5 meeting, County Counselor Bob Johnson presented a draft moratorium resolution. Chairman David Beerbower moved to approve Resolution 07-26, “providing for a temporary moratorium of utility scale power generation, crypto mining, data centers, and waste disposal operations in Bourbon County, Kansas.” Commissioner Samuel Tran seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The moratorium runs 180 days and specifically exempts the three solar energy projects previously approved under Resolution 41-25. It does not apply to commercial or industrial businesses generally — the broader moratorium recommended by the Planning Commission in November never advanced.

Ben Hall, a property owner at 80th and Willow Road, used public comment to describe a dispute with Evotech over a gas well on his property: he said Evotech had approached him in summer 2025 about leasing the well, that negotiations stalled over price, and that an Evotech contractor had later told a rural-water-district worker that Evotech had permission to access Hall’s property and could cut locks if needed. Hall said he had received no documentation supporting any access right and characterized Evotech’s actions as bullying and harassment. County Counselor Bob Johnson said the well dispute appeared to be a civil matter between private parties. (story)

February 13, 2026 — Civil lawsuit filed

Dereck Ranes, Cassie Ranes, David Ranes, and Verna Ranes filed a petition in Bourbon County District Court, case number BB-2026-CV-000013, against Evolution Technology, LLC and Charles Rees (the landowner of the site). The case is classified as “CV Other Tort” and is assigned to Judge Richard M. Fisher Jr.

The plaintiffs are represented by Rustin Kimmell of the Kimmell Law Firm LLC, Burlington, Kansas. Evolution Technology is represented by Matthew Hogan of Rasmussen, Dicky, Dioszeghy, Henry, Ijei in Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant Charles Rees is represented by Gary E. Thompson of Mound City, Kansas. The county is not a party to the lawsuit.

February 23, 2026 — Commission considers changes to the noise resolution; changes tabled (resolution remains in effect)

Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee raised concerns about the complaint form and the process for handling noise complaints under Resolution 50-25, and said she wanted to review the form and the start-to-finish enforcement process with the county attorney. She cited prior difficulty completing enforcement on existing county sanitation codes as a reason to make sure the noise-resolution process would actually work. Commissioner Beerbower agreed. Changes to the resolution were tabled until the next meeting; Resolution 50-25 itself remained in effect. (story)

March 2, 2026 — County Attorney provides analysis of proposed amended resolution

At the March 2 regular meeting, County Attorney James Crux presented his analysis of the proposed amended noise resolution and identified several issues, according to the meeting minutes:

• It was unclear whether the resolution was intended as a general nuisance statute or as specific decibel-based violations.
• The listed decibel limits (55 dB during day, 45 dB at night) were characterized as “guidelines” rather than enforceable standards. Crux noted that 55 dB is approximately equivalent to light traffic or nearby conversation, and that 45 dB is comparable to a modern refrigerator.
• Enforcement would require a county codes inspector with proper training in criminal law and search procedures.

Commissioner Beerbower noted the resolution was intended to address ongoing noise complaints, including in the Xenia area, with additional complaints pending the resolution’s adoption. Commissioner Tran asked Crux to visit the Xenia site to hear the noise firsthand. Commissioner Gregg Motley suggested that civil enforcement might be more effective than criminal enforcement; Crux noted his review found insufficient grounds for criminal public-nuisance charges. Both Crux and County Counselor Johnson indicated that either criminal or civil enforcement would likely involve lengthy, contested litigation. The consensus expressed in the minutes was that affected landowners pursuing individual civil action might be the most practical approach — an option the Ranes plaintiffs had already taken three weeks earlier with their February 13 petition.

March 16 to April 27, 2026 — Motion to dismiss, response, and hearing

Counsel for Evolution Technology entered an appearance and filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 16. The Ranes plaintiffs filed their Response in Opposition on April 6. Return of service on Charles Rees was completed on April 14, perfecting service on both defendants. Judge Fisher held a hearing on the motion to dismiss at 9:00 AM on April 27. The docket reflects “Hearing Held — Motion.”

May 18, 2026 — First Amended Petition filed

On May 18 the Ranes plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition — a five-page revision of the original four-page petition. The substantive changes are concentrated in newly added paragraphs 16–20 and a related argument throughout: between February 13 and May 18 the defendants temporarily stopped running the generators, and the amended petition invokes the voluntary cessation doctrine to argue that this tactical pause does not moot the case because the defendants retain full control of the equipment and have provided no legally binding assurance that the noise will not resume.

Key elements of the amended petition:

• Two claims: Count I — Private Nuisance; Count II — Negligence, including negligence per se for alleged violation of Bourbon County sound ordinances (Resolution 50-25).
• Alleged decibel levels: noise “in excess of 80 decibels (dB) and often exceeding 90 dB” on plaintiffs’ property, 24 hours a day.
• Alleged health effects: sleep deprivation, tinnitus, and other physical discomforts.
• Relief sought: a permanent injunction capping outdoor noise on plaintiffs’ land at 55 dB between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dB between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (mirroring the decibel limits used in the county’s Resolution 50-25 discussions), $1.00 in nominal damages, and a jury trial.

Source document: First Amended Petition — Ranes v. Evolution Technology and Rees (PDF). Two new alias summons were issued the same day.

---

Where things stand today

Item	Status
12-month cryptocurrency moratorium (October 14, 2025)	In effect through October 2026
Resolution 50-25 (noise limitations)	Adopted December 15, 2025; remains in effect. Proposed amendments tabled February 24, 2026 and discussed March 2, 2026; no enforcement action taken to date.
Resolution 07-26 — 180-day industrial moratorium (utility power, crypto mining, data centers, waste disposal)	Adopted unanimously January 5, 2026; expires approximately July 4, 2026 unless extended.
Planning Commission’s broader proposed moratorium on all new non-agricultural businesses	Tabled November 17, 2025; never enacted.
Evotech bitcoin mine	Continues to be located at 668 Willow Rd, Mapleton; per the amended petition, generators were temporarily stopped between February and May 2026.
Ranes v. Evolution Technology, LLC and Charles Rees (BB-2026-CV-000013)	Active. First Amended Petition filed May 18, 2026. Defendants’ response to the amended petition is the next scheduled action.

The dispute over the bitcoin mining operation has so far played out on three separate tracks: a county regulatory (the cryptocurrency moratorium, Resolution 50-25, and the broader industrial moratorium), a property-rights (the Ben Hall gas-well issue), and a private civil-tort lawsuit (the Ranes lawsuit). The county itself is not a party to the lawsuit.

FortScott.biz will continue to report on the lawsuit and related county actions as they develop.

Bourbon County Attorney James Crux has issued a letter today, May 12, 2026, finding that a recall petition filed against County Commissioner Samuel Tran meets all statutory requirements and is in proper order.

The petition alleges “Failure to Perform Required Duties” as the grounds for recall. Specifically, it alleges that Commissioner Tran failed to comply with Kansas statutes regarding the passing of a budget in 2025, in violation of K.S.A. 79-2934. The letter notes that this violation was reported in a 2025 audit presented in May of 2026.

In his review, Crux cited several Kansas statutes governing the recall process, including K.S.A. 25-4320, which outlines the requirements a recall petition must contain, and K.S.A. 25-4322, which establishes the County Attorney’s duty to determine the sufficiency of such a petition.

The County Attorney found that the stated basis of failure to perform required duties was alleged with sufficient particularity and contains a nexus to the duties of County Commissioner. However, the letter also notes that the truth or falsity of the grounds must still be determined by the electorate.

The full letter from the County Attorney is available below.

View the full letter (PDF)

This is a developing story. FortScott.biz will publish additional information as it becomes available.