Kansas committee opens hearing on bill to require E‑Verify for all new hires starting July 1, 2025

The Kansas Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 196 on the proposal to require all employers to enroll in and use the federal E‑Verify system to verify employment authorization for workers hired on or after July 1, 2025.

The bill’s sponsor language, read to the committee by staff member Jason, would make it unlawful to employ or contract with an unauthorized alien and provides a state complaint-and-investigation process that can be initiated with the attorney general or a local county or district attorney. If a court finds a business entity violated the prohibition, it must file an affidavit within three days certifying it has terminated unauthorized workers; courts may then suspend business licenses—up to 30 days for a first offense, 30 days to one year for a second offense, and permanent revocation for a third offense—unless the employer can show it used E‑Verify and complied with federal law.

The bill also would require public employers to verify that contractors use E‑Verify, and would prohibit a business from claiming a Kansas state income tax deduction for wages paid to employees who are unauthorized; businesses taking deductions would be required to file an affidavit with the Secretary of Revenue about their E‑Verify usage. The presenter told the committee the E‑Verify requirement applies to employees hired on or after July 1, 2025, and does not apply retroactively to current employees.

Why it matters: The measure would expand state-level enforcement of federal immigration and employment rules, add civil penalties and business-license sanctions at the state level, and place reporting and tax-compliance duties on Kansas businesses. Committee members pressed the bill’s proponents and opponents over practical details including volunteer status, self‑employed individuals, temp-agency arrangements, how disputes would be handled in court, and the accuracy and capacity of E‑Verify.

Supporters’ testimony and evidence cited Attorney General Kobach, appearing as an in-person proponent, said E‑Verify is a long-standing federal program that is “easy” and fast to use, and he presented program statistics: “Most verifications take less than a minute,” and, he said, “96.1% of verifications are approved immediately.” He told the committee that states that adopt mandatory E‑Verify have seen substantial estimated reductions in unauthorized presence and described the bill as providing a state-level enforcement mechanism that defers determinations of work authorization to the federal government. Kobach added that enrollment in E‑Verify creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer complied with the law.

Andrew Goode of Numbers USA, testifying as a proponent, said his group supports the bill as an enforcement tool and cited polling and academic studies saying voters favor mandatory E‑Verify and that states with mandatory E‑Verify have seen declines in estimated unauthorized employment.

Opponents’ testimony and concerns William Wilk, senior director of government affairs for the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, testified in opposition on behalf of a business coalition. He called the bill “an aggressive, invasive, and costly system of employment verification on all Kansas businesses,” and warned that the bill’s broad definitions and severe penalties—up to permanent loss of a business license—could suppress business operations. Wilk also raised concerns that E‑Verify has had documented deficiencies (including photo‑matching problems reported by USCIS) and that false positives or data-entry mistakes could trigger investigations and license sanctions without giving employers adequate opportunity to present corrective evidence.

Phil Hayes, who identified himself as an HR practitioner and conferee with business ties, told the committee E‑Verify and the I‑9 process are not foolproof and said employers can receive false positives; he said the bill could place small businesses at risk and impose recurring time and technology costs. Opponents also questioned the likely court workload if many complaints trigger investigations.

Committee questioning and unresolved details Committee members asked whether volunteers or homeowners hiring occasional help would be treated as employers under the bill; presenters said the bill’s statutory definitions raise questions for some factual contexts and that, generally, a temporary helper in a private home would not be covered, while temp agencies would be responsible for verifying the temps they employ. Senators asked whether self‑employed sole proprietors would be required to enroll; presenters said the requirement targets employers with employees, not someone who is only self‑employed with no employees. Questions also touched on how the state would detect noncompliance (complaint-driven investigations), the timeline for an employer’s affidavit, and whether courts would be inundated by enforcement actions.

Supporters and opponents both cited federal law and the federal I‑9 and E‑Verify systems in their arguments. Testimony included competing statements about E‑Verify reliability and the burden on small businesses; supporters emphasized the program’s speed and “safe harbor” effect when used, while opponents emphasized documented errors and the legal and operational risk of state-level sanctions.

Next steps and procedural notes The committee opened the hearing and took testimony from proponents and opponents; no committee vote on SB 196 was recorded during the session. The chair set time limits for testimony (12 minutes on either side) and paused the clock at points to allow questioning; the hearing was closed later in the session with no formal committee action recorded.