The petition Bourbon County Clerk Susan Walker filed to block the recall petition against her has seen a number of updates in the first week. When the case was filed on May 22, it named County Attorney James Crux and the three members of the recall committee as defendants (see: Bourbon County Clerk Files Lawsuit Seeking to Block Recall Petition). Since then, one recall committee member has hired a lawyer, Walker has narrowed her case, and the judge has already issued (and been asked to undo) an order. Read on for more details.
The biggest development is a motion filed by recall committee member Kevin Wagner under the Kansas Public Speech Protection Act (K.S.A. 60-5320), the state’s “anti-SLAPP” law. That law lets someone who is sued over protected speech or petition activity ask the court to throw the case out early. Filing the motion automatically freezes other motions in the case, and if the person who filed it prevails, the law can require the party who brought the lawsuit to pay their attorney fees.
In response, Walker amended her lawsuit to drop the three recall committee members (Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby) and proceed only against County Attorney Crux. The judge granted Walker’s request to dismiss the committee members. Wagner then asked the court to reverse that dismissal saying he was not given the time to respond that the rules require. He claims that his anti-SLAPP claim (including the possibility of recovering attorney fees) does not disappear just because Walker dropped him as a defendant.
May 27 — Wagner, represented by Wichita attorney Patrick B. Hughes, entered the case and filed a Motion to Strike under K.S.A. 60-5320. He argues Walker’s suit targets his right to petition, speak, and associate in support of a recall, and notes that filing the motion triggers an automatic stay of other motions.
May 28 — Walker filed an Amended Verified Petition naming only County Attorney Crux as a defendant, along with a Motion to Dismiss the Recall Committee members from the case. That amended petition still asks the court to declare the recall petition legally insufficient and to block any recall election based on it.
May 29 (morning) — The Judge signed an Order dismissing the recall committee, finding that Walker was entitled to amend her petition and that the amended version removed the committee as defendants.
May 29 (afternoon) — Wagner filed a Motion to Set Aside that Order, and an Objection to the dismissal. He argues that he didn’t have time to respond and that the automatic stay from his anti-SLAPP motion would prevent Walker from making the motion to dismiss the recall committee from the case.
Wagner’s filing may seem counterintuitive: he says he would not object to the entire case being dismissed, but he does object to the recall committee being removed while the case continues against Crux. His reasons, as stated in his motion:
The court is being asked to decide whether the committee’s recall petition is valid. Wagner says the committee members have a direct interest in that question and a right to notice and a chance to be heard — which they lose if they are not parties.
Under K.S.A. 60-219, he argues the committee members are necessary parties, and that ruling without them could leave County Attorney Crux exposed to conflicting obligations later.
His anti-SLAPP claim — including the question of attorney fees and possible sanctions under K.S.A. 60-5320 — remains to be decided regardless of whether he is a named defendant.
As of now, the recall committee members have been dismissed from the lawsuit, but Wagner has asked the judge to reverse that. The case continues against County Attorney Crux. The central question raised in the original lawsuit — whether the recall petition meets the legal requirements to move forward — has not been decided. 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.
In the week since Bourbon County Clerk Susan E. Walker filed suit to block the recall petition against her, the lawsuit has narrowed substantially. As of May 28, Walker has dismissed the three recall committee members as defendants, withdrawn her emergency request to stop signature-gathering, and re-cast the case as a narrower procedural challenge against the County Attorney. The recall petition continues to be circulated.
Who is still being sued. Only Bourbon County Attorney James Crux remains a defendant. The three recall committee members — Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby — have been dropped.
What Walker is no longer asking for. She has withdrawn her request for a Temporary Restraining Order, the emergency court order she had been seeking to stop the petition from being circulated.
What Walker is still asking for. She still wants the court to declare the recall petition legally invalid (because, she says, the County Attorney never issued the written sufficiency determination required by K.S.A. 25-4322(b) for the version now being circulated), and to block any certification of signatures and any recall election based on the petition.
May 22 — Walker filed her original petition and an application for an ex parte temporary restraining order (an emergency order issued without first hearing from the other side) asking the court to halt signature-gathering immediately. The recall committee members were named as defendants alongside County Attorney Crux.
On or around May 26 — While no written order is shown on public site, it appears the court denied the original ex parte TRO request. The denial is referenced in Walker’s later filing. Her counsel writes that an email “notified Defendant Crux the Court rejected Plaintiff’s request for an ex parte TRO” and asked about scheduling a hearing.
May 26 — Walker filed an amended TRO application (25 pages, up from 17), expanding her irreparable-harm claims. The new filing alleges that “members of the public are photographing Plaintiff and her family to post online with untrue claims,” and that circulation of the petition “causes continuing irreparable harm to the Plaintiff’s ability to perform her duties as Bourbon County Clerk.”
May 27 — Attorney Patrick B. Hughes of Adams Jones Law Firm in Wichita entered an appearance for defendant Kevin Wagner.
May 27 — Wagner filed a motion to strike Walker’s entire petition under Kansas’s anti-SLAPP statute, K.S.A. 60-5320. Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws protect against lawsuits that target their protected speech, petitioning, or association on public issues. Notably the law shifts attorney fees to the losing plaintiff.
May 28 — Walker filed an amended petition (20 pages, down from 28) removing the three recall committee members as defendants. Only County Attorney Crux remains. The new filing drops the request to stop circulation of the recall petition. Instead it only asks the court to declare the petition invalid and block any steps that would occur after collecting signatures.
May 28 — Walker filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant Recall Committee formally dropping Parks, Wagner, and Owenby. The motion states plainly: “Plaintiff withdraws and will not argue its motions for a temporary restraining order restraining Defendant Recall Committee’s recall petition from being circulated.”
Where things stand:
The case is now significantly narrower and no longer names the people who filed the recall petition. Walker also no longer seeking to stop signature-gathering. What remains is a procedural dispute between the county clerk and the county attorney over whether the recall petition was properly approved for circulation in the first place.
Since Wagner’s anti-SLAPP motion was filed before Walker’s pivot, it isn’t clear if Wagner’s motion just goes away or if it still requires a ruling.
County Attorney Crux, the only remaining defendant, has yet to file any type of response.
Court filings cited above are public records. Descriptions of communications between counsel and individual defendants come from Walker’s own court filings and have not been independently confirmed. 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.
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.
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.
“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.
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))
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.
Adopted December 15, 2025; remains in effect. Proposed amendments tabled February 24, 2026 and discussed March 2, 2026; no enforcement action taken to date.
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.
Fort Scott Community College held its first “State of FSCC” community luncheon on May 21 in the Ellis Fine Arts Building, drawing a full house of faculty, staff, community partners, donors, board members, alumni, and supporters.
President Dr. Jack Welch and his administrative leadership team used the event to share updates on enrollment strategy, athletics, finances, academics, and the college’s vision for the future. The college plans to make this an annual event.
Foundation and Grants
Lindsay Hill, Dean of Advancement, reported that the FSCC Foundation awarded over $200,000 in student scholarships this past year, and the foundation portfolio has grown to more than $7.5 million. Federal and state grants continue to support key programs including TRIO, HEP, CAMP, the Heavy Equipment program (ARPA), CTE pathways (FRAME grant), and nursing.
Enrollment and Student Recruitment
Vanessa Poyner, VP of Student Affairs, addressed enrollment trends, acknowledging that enrollment is down statewide. However, FSCC is responding by shifting strategy rather than simply accepting a decline. The college has created new positions to strengthen relationships with high schools across its three-county, 11-school-district service area. Concurrent and dual credit enrollment with high school students remains strong, and career and technical education (CTE) programs continue to grow.
Athletics as a Draw
Athletic Director Dave Wiemers reported on program successes including a Region 6 tournament championship, continued dominance by the rodeo program (three consecutive Central Plains team championships), and another strong baseball season. A new soccer program is launching this fall with coaches already recruiting, and the track program is being rebuilt from zero to a target of 50-60 athletes. In total, FSCC expects to add approximately 128 students through athletic roster growth.
Financial Update
CFO Gina Shelton reviewed FSCC’s revenue sources, noting that state appropriations and local property taxes make up the largest portions. The college has held its mill levy largely flat over the past decade, with only a modest increase in the last two years to address cash position concerns. Shelton reported that the college has regained financial stability and is focused on responsible budgeting, cost management, and strategic program investment. She emphasized that not every program is going to break even at community colleges like FSCC as they attempt to meet community needs.
Academics
Dr. Larry Guerrero, VP of Academic Affairs, highlighted that FSCC operates with 31 full-time faculty and 39 adjunct professors, offering up to 354 courses per semester. The college graduated 285 students at its most recent commencement. Notably, FSCC boasts a 61% retention rate — among the highest for Kansas community colleges — and a 40% graduation rate. The Higher Learning Commission recognized FSCC’s assessment plan as among the most impressive they have seen. FSCC also holds the number one community college GPA transfer rate to four-year schools in Kansas. New programs including pharmacy tech are being added.
Economic Impact
Dr. Welch cited research showing FSCC contributes more than $145.6 million in total economic impact to the region, with alumni impact alone exceeding $135 million. One in every 19 jobs in the service area is connected to FSCC activity, supporting more than 2,700 regional jobs. The college employs 109 full-time and 34 part-time employees with a payroll exceeding $6.25 million.
Looking Ahead
Dr. Welch closed by emphasizing that FSCC’s success depends on community partnership. He outlined a six-year plan and encouraged community members to spread the word about what the college offers. He noted that FSCC has 2 by 2 agreements with Missouri Southern, and articulation agreement with Emporia State and is working with Pittsburg State.
“A college succeeds because of the people, our relationships, who we are, what we do, the care from our heart to see people grow,” Dr. Welch told attendees.
In a follow-up email, Dr. Welch thanked attendees and invited ongoing feedback: “We want to continue building relationships, listening, and working together for the betterment of FSCC.”
For more information about Fort Scott Community College, visit fortscott.edu or contact the admissions office in Bailey Hall.
A recall petition has been formally filed against Bourbon County Commissioner Samuel Tran, and Bourbon County Attorney James Crux has found the petition meets the legal requirements to begin collecting signatures that can lead to the recall process. This article looks at the petition, who filed it, the grounds for recall, the applicable laws, and what happens next.
The recall committee is made up of three Bourbon County residents:
Lynne D. Oharah — Uniontown, KS
Clinton L. Walker — Mapleton, KS
Rachel S. Walker — Mapleton, KS
The petition was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State, Elections Division, using the standard Kansas “Petition For Recall of Elected Official” form (K.S.A. 25-4320, K.S.A. 25-4322).
Grounds for Recall
The petition alleges “Failure to perform duties prescribed by law” and makes the following specific claims:
K.S.A. 79-2934, Kansas budget law, states that no money in any fund shall be used to pay for any indebtedness created in excess of the total amount of the adopted budget of expenditures for such fund.
On December 15, 2025, during a regular business meeting, Commissioner Tran stated he would not be available to attend any budget hearing to amend the budget after the ten-day publication requirement.
The petition alleges Tran failed to perform the duties prescribed by law to make himself available to amend known violations of budget law for Bourbon County, creating a budget violation.
This budget violation was cited in the 2025 audit presented on May 4, 2026.
The petition states that these actions and omissions demonstrate a failure to perform official duties as prescribed by law and constitute sufficient grounds for recall under Kansas Statutes.
County Attorney’s Review
In a letter dated May 11, 2026, County Attorney James Crux reviewed the petition and found it meets all statutory requirements under K.S.A. 25-4320. Those requirements include the name and office of the official, grounds for recall described in less than 200 words, a statement that petition signers are registered electors, the name and address of the recall committee, the warning required by K.S.A. 25-4321, and a statement that a list of authorized petition circulators is on file with the County Election Officer.
Crux noted that under K.S.A. 25-4322, it is the duty of the County Attorney to determine the sufficiency of a recall petition. He found that the description of the alleged failure does indeed describe a failure to perform the required duties of a County Commissioner. However, the letter also notes that the truth or falsity of the grounds must still be determined by the electorate, not the County Attorney.
Signature Needed Still Being Determined
In an email on May 15, 2026, County Clerk Susan Walker stated that due to the uniqueness of Commissioner Tran’s appointment and the fact that he switched between districts, the Secretary of State is working on a ruling for the number of signatures that must be obtained. The Clerk indicated she would follow up as soon as a determination is made.
Under Kansas law (K.S.A. 25-4322), once the petition is found sufficient, the recall committee has 90 days to gather the required number of verified signatures from registered voters in the election district before the petition can proceed to a recall election.
Other Active Recall Petitions
Commissioner Tran is not the only Bourbon County official currently facing a recall petition. A separate recall petition was recently filed against County Clerk Susan Walker, alleging failure to perform duties related to ballot errors during the 2025 General Election. That petition was filed by a different recall committee made up of Kyle R. Parks, Kevin Wagner, and Lyle K. Owenby.
Residents interested in the legal process for recalls may be interested in these links:
K.S.A. 25-4301 et seq. — General provisions governing recall of local officials in Kansas
K.S.A. 25-4320 — Requirements for the content of a recall petition
K.S.A. 25-4321 — Warning required on the petition regarding the penalty for fraudulent signatures
K.S.A. 25-4322 — County Attorney’s duty to determine sufficiency; 90-day signature-gathering period
K.S.A. 25-4325 — Affidavit requirement for petition circulators
K.S.A. 79-2934 — Kansas budget law (cited as the statute allegedly violated)
This is a developing story. FortScott.biz will continue to publish updates as more information becomes available, including the required number of signatures once the Secretary of State issues a ruling.
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.
A journal entry filed May 4, 2026 in the Bourbon County District Court sets a three-day jury trial beginning July 6, 2026 at 9:00 AM in the criminal case against Bourbon County Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for June 26, 2026 at 10:00 AM, and proposed special jury questionnaires are due by June 5, 2026.
The Charges
The Kansas Attorney General’s office filed a two-count misdemeanor complaint against Milburn-Kee on March 24, 2026, stemming from an incident on October 25, 2025 when early voting was taking place at the Bourbon County Courthouse.
Count One charges her with interference with the conduct of public business in a public building (K.S.A. 21-5922(a)(5)), a Class A nonperson misdemeanor carrying up to 12 months confinement and a fine of up to $2,500. Count Two charges her with disorderly election conduct (K.S.A. 25-2413(c)), a Class B nonperson misdemeanor carrying up to 6 months confinement and a fine of up to $1,000. Under K.S.A. 25-2432, a conviction on Count Two would require Milburn-Kee to forfeit her public office.
The Alleged Incident
Security camera footage reviewed by FortScott.biz shows that on October 25, 2025, Milburn-Kee entered the commission meeting room at 9:37 AM and sat at her usual seat while early voting was underway. The commission room was being used that day to validate voters and handle provisional ballots. County Clerk Susan Walker told Milburn-Kee twice that election law did not permit her to be in the polling area. To Milburn-Kee’s immediate right was a stack of what County Clerk Walker identified as unverified provisional ballots. At 9:41 AM, Milburn-Kee waved and greeted someone coming into the building to vote. Milburn-Kee moved to an adjoining office at approximately 9:51 AM, roughly twelve minutes after first being told to leave.
The case is being prosecuted by Olivia R. Higdon, Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division’s Economic Crimes unit, on behalf of Attorney General Kris W. Kobach — not by the local county attorney. The State has listed 15 witnesses.
Arrest and Court Proceedings
On April 29, 2026, Milburn-Kee was booked into the Bourbon County Jail at 4:19 PM on the two charges and released on her own recognizance at 4:48 PM, with a court-ordered bond of $0, according to the Bourbon County Sheriff’s Office daily report for April 30. Previously on that same day, a first appearance was held via Zoom before the Honorable Merlin Wheeler. A written arraignment and not guilty plea had been submitted to the court on April 15, 2026, prior to the first appearance.
Milburn-Kee is represented by attorneys Tricia Bath and Thomas Bath of Bath & Edmonds PA in Leawood, Kansas. The court also ordered that she be permitted to contact County Clerk Susan Walker for purposes of county business conducted in open sessions.
Prior Precedent
FortScott.biz has previously examined similar Kansas cases prosecuted under the same statutes. Every comparable Kansas case found ended in the defendant admitting guilt through a plea or diversion. No case could be found that went to a jury verdict. There also was not found a case where the forfeiture-of-office provision (K.S.A. 25-2432) was invoked.
Note: Since there is not a way to search by charge and the Attorney General may not be inclined to issue press releases about cases they lost, the analysis should be taken with the caveat that not finding a case is not the same as proving that no such cases exist.
FortScott.biz will continue to follow the case as it develops.
Being charged with a crime is not the same as being found guilty. The defendant is presumed innocent and has the right to contest the charges through the court system.
Similarities and differences in prior Kansas polling-place prosecutions and the current Bourbon County case.
The charges against Commissioner Milburn-Kee
On March 24, 2026, the Kansas Attorney General’s office filed a two-count misdemeanor complaint against Bourbon County Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee. Count One is a general charge for interfering with public business in a public building. Count Two, what is looked at in this article, charges her under K.S.A. 25-2413(c), the polling-place “three-foot rule”: a Class B misdemeanor to come within three feet of a voting booth or an election-board table unless you are there to vote or the supervising judge lets you. The law is associated with K.S.A. 25-2432, which says a public official who is convicted of an election crime loses their office (25-2413; 25-2432).
What is alleged
A prior FortScott.biz summary of the security-camera video describes the commission meeting room being used during early voting to validate voters and handle provisional ballots. On October 25, 2025, Milburn-Kee is shown sitting at the commission table near a stack of what election officials said were unverified provisional ballots, reading a newspaper, and waving and greeting a voter through the open doorway. County Clerk Susan Walker is shown twice telling her she cannot be in the polling-area rooms; on the second try, Walker offered to help move her things and said she would call the police if required. Milburn-Kee moved to an adjoining office about twelve minutes after first being told to leave.
The closest Kansas comparison: Blubaugh
In October 2024, Meghan Blubaugh — the wife of a newly elected Sedgwick County commissioner — wore a T-shirt with her husband’s campaign name on it to an early-voting site in southwest Wichita. Poll workers asked her to turn it inside out, and she refused. The county Election Commissioner then came to the site in person and asked her again, and she refused a second time. Poll workers called the Secretary of State’s office, and Blubaugh was charged under K.S.A. 25-2430 (electioneering), a Class A misdemeanor. In January 2025, the case was resolved by diversion, with about $160 in court costs and completion of a county election-worker training. Diversion is not a conviction, but does usually require one to admit fault. If she finishes the program, the case is dismissed with nothing on the record.
This seems to be about the closest match to an election-related case in Kansas. The original polling-place misdemeanor filing, a politically connected defendant, and an alleged refusal to follow an election official’s on-site instruction. The result was Blubaugh choosing to admit guilt and take a diversion rather than fight the charge.
But there are differences. Blubaugh wasn’t a sitting elected official, so forfeiture of office was never on the table; the statute charged was different, and her conduct unfolded over a shorter window than the roughly twelve minutes in Milburn-Kee’s video summary. Diversion can be offered in one case and declined in another, so the fact that it was used in the Blubaugh case doesn’t mean it would be an option in another case, even if the situation were the same.
Milburn-Kee was not charged under 25-2430 herself, even though she greeted a voter. That statute is aimed at campaign advocacy (candidates, parties, ballot questions). The public description of her interaction doesn’t mention campaign material.
The same-statute comparison: Ceballos
Joe Ceballos-Armendariz, the former mayor of Coldwater, was charged in November 2025 with six felonies for voting as a Mexican citizen and lawful permanent resident in three prior elections. His defense attorney, Jess Hoeme, initially told KCUR he was “confident he’ll beat this” by arguing Ceballos never intended to commit crime a before a jury. However, his case was resolved when he plead guilty to a lesser crime. April 20, 2026 Ceballos pled guilty to three Class B misdemeanor counts of K.S.A. 25-2413 (the same statute cited in Count Two against Milburn-Kee). In exchange, the court dismissed all six felonies Ceballos was charged with. The sentence after the plea deal involved a $2,000 fine plus costs, six months jail per count (but this was suspended), and one year of probation.
His sentence after pleading guilty to the lesser charge is probably the most current example of how 25-2413 has been applied in Kansas, but Ceballos’ case isn’t a perfect parallel for Milburn-Kee’s charges. Under Kansas law, elected officials must be legal electors, so he had to step down from Coldwater’s city council immediately instead of waiting to see if he won or lost the case. He also faced possible federal deportation tied to a conviction. Both can change what a plea is worth in ways that wouldn’t apply to a U.S. citizen serving out an elected term in an office they are legally qualified to occupy. He was also negotiating down from six felonies. With Commissioner Milburn-Kee’s case, it isn’t clear what lower charge might be offered in exchange for a plea, should she decide not to fight the charges.
Gaps in the record
Every Kansas 25-2413 and 25-2430 case that could be found ended in the defendant admitting guilt through a plea or diversion, and none of them went through trial to a verdict. So it is hard to determine, from past cases, how a judge or jury would apply the three-foot rule to facts like the current situation. The forfeiture-of-office statute is also doesn’t come up in these cases. It appears to make loss of office automatic on final conviction, but Ceballos wasn’t in office at the time of conviction, and Blubaugh wasn’t running for office. How forfeiture would work for an official who stays in office through a conviction is an open question.
One caveat: the Attorney General’s office, like most prosecutors, generally files cases it thinks it can win or settle, avoids cases it doesn’t think it doesn’t think are very strong, and publicizes wins more than losses.
On the one hand, this might indicate that the Attorney General doesn’t bring charges until their investigation gives them full confidence of a conviction. On the other hand, there might be cases that the AG drops that are harder to find in the judicial record. If they exist, they might indicate potential for Milburn-Kee to mount a successful defense.
The following letter was provided by the Bourbon County Republican Party.
Bourbon County Republican Party
4/10/2026
Susan Walker
Bourbon County Clerk & Election Officer
Bourbon County Courthouse
210 South National Avenue
Fort Scott, Kansas 66701
Re: Vote of No Confidence in Bourbon County Clerk Susan Walker – Failure to Perform Duties Prescribed by Law
Mrs. Walker,
By direction of the Bourbon County Republican Party’s duly elected precinct committeemen and committeewomen, this letter is to formally convey a Vote of No Confidence in your performance as Bourbon County Clerk and Chief Election Officer. This action was taken following a review of your conduct during and related to the November 4, 2025, General Election. The precinct committee members determined that your actions constitute a failure to perform duties prescribed by law.
Specific Grounds for the Vote of No Confidence:
During advance voting for the 2025 General Election, the official ballots omitted the USD 235 Board of Education candidate options, despite timely notifications from affected residents that the ballots were incorrect while advance voting was actively underway. Although corrected ballots were eventually printed the night before Election Day, the error meant that all early in-person votes and mail-in/absentee ballots had already been cast without the proper school board races included. As a result, numerous USD 235 voters were effectively disenfranchised from participating in the Board of Education election.
Your office attributed the error to the school district for allegedly filing the wrong plan, rather than accepting responsibility for the inaccurate preparation, proofreading, and verification of ballots as required by Kansas election statutes. The County Clerk, as the chief election officer, bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that ballots accurately reflect all properly filed candidacies in accordance with state law and the Kansas Election Standards.
Furthermore, the precinct committeemen and committeewomen believe that your actions regarding attempts to influence other elected offices and positions lack integrity, further eroding public confidence in the impartial administration of county government. This incident, along with the broader concerns noted above, undermined public trust in the integrity and accuracy of the electoral process and county operations in Bourbon County.
Party Position:
The Bourbon County Republican Party strongly supports free, fair, and accurate elections in which every eligible voter can confidently participate, as well as the highest standards of integrity and impartiality from all elected officials. We believe that the citizens of Bourbon County deserve election administration and county leadership that meet these expectations. The events surrounding the USD 235 ballot error and related concerns fall short of those standards. This Vote of No Confidence is an expression of the Party’s position and serves as a formal public statement of disapproval.
We urge you to reflect on these matters and take all necessary steps to restore public trust, including enhanced protocols for ballot accuracy, timely and transparent communication, full acceptance of responsibility when issues arise, and a commitment to impartial conduct in all official duties.
A copy of this letter is being provided to local news media outlets for public awareness.
By direction of the Bourbon County Republican Party Precinct Committee,
John Snalt, a member of the MGODGAOALGMPTA (Make Good Old Days Great Again Or At Least Get More People To Attend) advisory committee, says he has been working tirelessly to restore the annual event to its former greatness, or at least to a level of greatness that can be considered both good and old for at least one day.
“We spent a lot of time carefully studying what made Good Old Days successful in the past,” Snalt said. “The biggest crowds came in 1986. In more recent years, one of the most popular attractions was DockDogs.”
DockDogs, for those unfamiliar, is the event in which highly motivated dogs sprint down a dock and launch themselves into a swimming pool in an effort to see which dog can jump the farthest. It has long been regarded as one of the festival’s more understandable traditions.
According to Snalt, the committee’s research showed that 1986 had a major factor working in its favor.
“1986 was also the year of the great flood,” he said. “We do not believe it was a coincidence that attendance peaked during the same general era in which large portions of the county had recently been underwater.”
The committee reportedly spent months exploring ways to recreate the conditions of 1986. Several proposals were rejected after being described by engineers as “catastrophic,” by accountants as “unfundable,” and by attorneys as “the sort of thing that would follow you for the rest of your life.”
“We had one very promising concept involving levees, backhoes, and just a truly awe-inspiring amount of dynamite,” Snalt said. “But those good-for-nothing lawyers started using phrases like ‘federal charges’ and ‘multi-agency response,’ and that really killed the momentum.”
Forced back to the drawing board, the committee began searching for individual elements of the 1986 experience that could be reproduced without requiring evacuation maps, massive casualties, or court appearances. That is when they found what Snalt calls “the breakthrough.”
“In 1986, millions of people saw that famous photograph of cows standing on a roof here in Bourbon County,” he said. “And when you look at the timing, it’s hard to ignore the possibility that roof cows were the secret ingredient all along.”
This year’s featured attraction, Roof Cows, is intended to test that theory with what organizers describe as “a data-driven, family-oriented aerial livestock experience.”
Current plans call for the construction of a long, low building with a reinforced flat roof in Skubitz Plaza. Several cows will be positioned on top, where they will be given a short running lane before launching themselves toward a 250,000-gallon pool below in a bold reimagining of DockDogs, but with substantially more insurance paperwork.
Festival organizers say the event will combine nostalgia, local history, and the unmistakable thrill of watching an event conceived with enormously poor judgment executed before your very eyes.
“We’re not entirely sure why images of cows on roofs near floodwater captured the public imagination,” Snalt admitted. “But the data doesn’t lie. People saw roof cows, and shortly afterward Good Old Days had huge crowds. That’s what science people call a pattern.”
Asked whether cows are naturally inclined to sprint across rooftops and leap into deep water before cheering spectators, Snalt said the committee prefers to remain “solutions-focused.”
“There’s always negativity when you’re trying to innovate,” he said. “People said the same thing about DockDogs. Granted, in that case the dogs actually wanted to do it, but still.”
The proposal has already drawn praise from residents who say the festival has been missing the kind of bold thinking that can only come from selective memory, questionable historical analysis, and a total misunderstanding of causation.
Snalt confirmed that the plans were finalized on April 1.
“These ideas really seem to come together best on that date,” he said.
The recent attorney general charges against a sitting commissioner for unlawfully and willfully entering a polling area for purposes other than voting during the last election have raised some concerns for local resident John Snalt. Snalt feels that laws saying someone running for election can’t be present in a polling area are silly and outdated.
Snalt explained, “Someone on Facebook left a comment saying a commissioner was facing charges because they were too close to ballots in a voting area. At first I wasn’t sure what to think, but thanks to all those Facebook comments, I’ve made up my mind.”
“These nonsense laws that outlaw sitting at a table being used to process ballots were written back when people were traveling by horse and buggy. Maybe it made sense to say you can’t go into a polling area to do your work years ago back when people were concerned about the integrity of the election process, but we live in modern times and laws have to change. Change isn’t going to happen unless we make it!” said Snalt.
To bring attention to the issue, Snalt is planning a “lock-on protest” at the next election. He is asking for volunteers to go into the polling area during early voting and chain themselves to the commissioner’s table to raise awareness of how ridiculous he feels these voting laws are.
When asked if he saw any issues with encouraging others to commit a crime, Snalt said, “I haven’t read any of the statutes related to this so it isn’t a crime for me.” Snalt feels he can’t be charged for a crime if he doesn’t know it is a crime. “A comment by someone I don’t know on Facebook said it would only be illegal if we knew it was illegal, so I don’t think we’ll get in any significant trouble, but we’ll be able to let our voices be heard and bring attention to these senseless voting interference laws.”
Snalt looked a bit confused when asked if he saw any contradiction between saying he wasn’t familiar with election laws while also claiming to protest those laws. “I’m not sure about all that, but people on Facebook said that you shouldn’t be prosecuted for something you don’t know is illegal, so we are going to do our best to get all the chains locking us to the chairs and table before anyone can show up and tell us about any ridiculous laws that would say we aren’t allowed to be in there.” Snalt also plans to distribute earplugs to make it harder for any of the protestors to hear anything that might inform them of any of the election interference laws that they plan to protest by “unknowingly” breaking. When asked why they were starting the planning so early, Snalt explained, “There is really only one day each year when we can announce something like this, and today is the day it can be done. If we wait until closer to the election, we’d have to wait to announce it until 4/1/2027.”
