today, sam brownback fixed that problem for him.aw that will let the secretary of state in kansas bring those prosecutions himself. chris kobach has not been able to persuade real prosecutors to bring these voter fraud cases which he said he knows all about. so sam brownback said he can bring them himself. he can be the prosecutor. he can end the run-around that whole part of the judicial process, which would be the most radical thing being done in a u.s. state, if it weren't for sam brownback threatening to eliminate his state's whole judicial system unless the judges rule the way he wants them to. joining us now, political reporter from the kansas star. thanks for being here. >> great to be here. >> i think that outsiders, or at least one outsider over here kind of marvels at the changes under governor brownback. both their ambition but also really just their radicalness. how does it feel in kansas how is this being received in kansas? >> well many many moderate kansas republicans are aghast, rachel, at what's going on in this sta

stage where the republican party, i'm just waiting for maine governor to get into the race and sam brownbacke at that point, we're surely watching a 1970s show of saturday morning looney tunes -- what would you call it? i guess saturday morning comics. that's what this is about, bobby jindal in the 30s in approval rating in his home state. chris christie who will also declare next week sitting in the 30s. not sure why they're scraping the bottom-of-the of the barrel but i as opposed to there is another republican governor somewhere in the states we just have to find him. not very hard to do. >> isn't this what the republicans were trying to avoid? >> yes, they definitely did not want this many candidates running for the republican nomination. this is a party, republicans have been plagued by primary problems for several cycles now, on the house and senate level, now on the presidential level. they wanted a smaller field and they didn't want to have to deal with the issue of fitting 13 maybe even 18 candidates in a single debate. this is not what they wanted. but i will mention something abou

sam brownback recently rescinded an executive order that said the state would discriminate against gay people in its own hiring. that might be constitutional, at least under the supreme court has said, after they rule marriage equality as the law of the land. i think it is likely a narrow victory will be a complete victory -- we will get marriage equality in all 50 states. but that it is much less likely that the court will recognize that the constitutional dish demands is discrimination against gay people of any kind should be treated with skepticism. ari: what is interesting as you mentioned the federal obligation to explain itself and in all the cases we see some discussion of where did these rules from, but it is something positive about the judiciary that is the only part that has binding rules and having to explain itself. many disagree, it can be held at in the light of day of why did you do this. some decisions don't wear well in real time. i want to go back to robbie and then broaden out to the sixth circuit decision, which you are intimately familiar with, in which ohio again

sam brownback, for example, recently rescinded an executive order saying the state wouldn't discrimination against gay people in its own hiring. that might be constitutional. at least under what the supreme court has said, after they rule that marriage equality is the law of the land. so i mean, i guess, you know, the short answer to your question is, i think it's likely that the narrow victory will be a complete victory. that will get marriage equality in all 50 states, but it is much less likely that the court will recognize what the constitution really commands what its own precedence commands, which is that discrimination against gay people of any kind by the government should be treated with skepticism. >> what's interesting about that you mention the federal government's obligation to explain itself and in all these cases we see at least some discussion of, well where did these rules come from? where did these laws come from? it really is something special and i think positive about the judiciary that it's the only part of government that has really binding rules in having to explain

governor sam brownback says it's not paying off in terms of the rankings at least not yet. its economy. 13th place in 2014. 34th place last year. of course you can get all of this information. find out where your state stacks up and also a lot more about the issues of workforce, quality of life, everything else. topstates.cnbc.com. guys? >> thank you, scott. great job as always. fantastic. but i'm going to give you a piece of advice. you need to do the worst states for business because looking at your list and hawaii is dead last. you need to do a week-long special on why it's dead last. >> yeah. right from there. i think that would be great. we'll do it maybe, like in january or something like that. that'd be great. >> hawaii did score number one in quality of life but pretty much dead last. i was a little surprised to see the drop of my beloved adopted home state of virginia. that was like one and two every year and now it's 12. >> yeah. the interesting thing about virginia, brian, is that it was doing really well. it was aur inaugural top state for business in 2007. but

governor sam brownback in kansas cut taxes and spending and their economy really suffered. is whenever you look at these questions, there are always compensating factors. the timing in which you cut -- people say about the clinton era, look, there were surpluses. maybe that shows us those policies are the way to go. maybe. but maybe that just shows economic fluctuations happening underneath and over and above politics in a way that is very hard to trace cause and effect. i think with tariffs it is pretty clear that protectionism is not the right policy in the long run. it costs consumers money. people tend to focus on the lost jobs. the sugar industry is a great example. sugar that is imported is heavily taxed compared to domestically produced sugar. everything you buy is a little bit more expensive because of that. this idea that we are protecting jobs or that somehow it is important that we have our own domestic ability to produce sugar or any good, when you're just looking at dollars and cents there is this fundamental thing of not only is sugar cheaper at home but also

to sam brownback of kansas recently rescinded an executive order which said the state would not discriminate against gave people in its own hiring. that might be constitutional, at least under the what the supreme court has said after their marriage equality is along the line. the short answer to your question is i think it's likely than their victory will be a complete the victory that will get marriage equality in all 50 states. but that it is much less likely that the court will recognize what the constitution really commands which is that discrimination against gave people of any kind by the government should be treated with skepticism. >> what's interesting about that you mentioned the federal government's obligation to explain itself and in all these cases we see least some discussion of welcome where do these rules and the laws come from. is something special positive about the judiciary that it's the only part of government that are truly binding rules in having to explain itself and explain its thinking. even when you disagree with something from a can help out in the light of day o