Kansas committee hears bill to ease labeling and formatting rules for third‑party mailers seeking advance‑ballot applications

The Kansas Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs held a hearing in Topeka on Senate Bill 231, which would adjust requirements for entities that mail solicitations asking registered voters to submit applications for advance voting (mail) ballots.

The bill would: allow the sender’s identifying information to appear on a label or a single page of the mailing rather than on the exterior and every page; reduce the required type size for that information from 14‑point to 10‑point; remove the requirement that the sender list the organization’s president, CEO or executive director (keeping the organization name and address); permit preprinting only the date of the election on the application; and replace the current mandate to include a preaddressed envelope with a requirement that the mailing provide instructions on how to return the application to the appropriate county election office. Supporters said the changes would take effect July 1 if the bill is enacted.

Jason (committee adviser) summarized the bill to members, saying: “Senate bill 2 31 is a bill that makes some, adjustments to the requirements, for persons who are soliciting registered voters to submit an application for an advanced voting ballot.” He pointed the committee to the statutory language in subsection (k) of KSA 25‑1122 and to the bill text where the specific edits appear on pages 4 and 5. He noted the bill “would allow you to, print the date of the election for which that application is being sent” but would not permit preprinting other portions of the application.

Clay Barker, general counsel to the Kansas secretary of state, told the committee the draft was created by political operators and groups that perform mailings and that the changes are primarily “mechanical” and intended to lower printing costs. “This bill was actually not drafted by the secretary of state, but a number of, I guess, you call them political operators,” Barker said. He also reviewed litigation history related to a 2021 restriction on prepopulating applications: a district court injunction, a subsequent appellate reversal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and ongoing district‑court briefing on the issue.

Members questioned practical effects and consumer protection. Senator Tyson said third‑party mailers in prior cycles had been “very misleading” and sometimes mimicked official materials, asking what further safeguards could prevent confusion. Jason and Barker noted current law already requires a disclosure that the mailing is not a government mailing; Jason said that requirement remains, and Barker said the suggested changes do not eliminate that disclosure. The committee also asked whether a mailing would have to explain where voters could hand‑deliver applications or use drop boxes; Jason said the committee could add language to include hand‑delivery information if it wished.

The committee heard that the 14‑point requirement had become “very cumbersome” and costly for some groups. Barker said the envelope requirement was removed because many voters now return applications by scanning and emailing them as PDFs rather than using a mailed envelope, and manufacturers and political groups sought relief from the cost of including a preaddressed envelope on every mailed application.

No committee vote occurred at the hearing. The bill’s sponsor and staff said they were available for questions and that the changes are intended to reduce producers’ costs while retaining a required disclosure that the mailings are from private parties rather than the government.

The hearing record includes proponent testimony from the secretary of state’s office and written opponent testimony provided to the committee; no final committee action was taken during the session.