Committee hears bill to bar federal funds for Kansas election activities without legislative approval

A Kansas House committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 5, a proposal to bar state and local election officials from accepting or expending federal agency funds for elections or election-related activities unless the appropriation authorizing those funds explicitly permits such use.

The reviser, Jason Long, told the committee the measure would amend an existing statute (cited in the hearing as KSA 25-24-36) that currently makes it a felony for an election official to knowingly accept or spend money from any person for election-related purposes unless authorized by the Legislature or state law. "This bill is to prohibit expenditure of federal funds for elections and election related activities without legislative approval," Long said, and explained the bill explicitly adds money provided by any branch, agency, department, office or bureau of the federal government to the existing prohibition.

Supporter testimony came from Steve Green of Opportunity Solutions Project, who framed the bill as a response to a 2021 executive order from the White House directing federal agencies to develop plans to promote voter registration and participation. "We just think that it's the state government or state legislature that should be appropriating these monies, not any other entity," Green said, arguing the bill would draw a bright line between federal grant-making and state appropriations for election work. He also acknowledged that President Trump later rescinded the 2021 order and said the bill is intended to apply regardless of which party controls the White House.

Clay Barker, general counsel for the Kansas Secretary of State, testified the office was neutral because the bill would not change existing Secretary of State procedures. Barker told the committee the bill would not affect HAVA funds that are appropriated by Congress and then reappropriated by the Kansas Legislature for election security. He noted past state actions in which state agencies (for example DCF and KDHE) distributed voter registration forms — "277,000 voter registration forms" in 2020 was cited as an historical example — and said the bill is aimed at prohibiting federal grant funds that are repurposed for voter registration or turnout activities unless the appropriation allows it.

Committee members asked technical and scope questions, including whether the bill would permit federal funds that are authorized by Congress for elections (Barker and Long confirmed those remain permissible) and whether private NGOs that receive federal money would be covered (Long and other advisers said the bill targets governmental bodies and public instrumentalities; private entities are not automatically covered by the statutory definition of "governmental agency"). Barker also said enforcement would follow the existing criminal statute: violations could be pursued by the attorney general or a county or district attorney because the underlying offense is an election crime.

No opponents were listed for the hearing and the committee closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 5. Committee leadership said the bill was expected to be worked on again later in the week.

Why it matters: The bill would expand the set of funds election officials cannot accept or spend unless explicitly authorized by federal appropriation language or by state law. Proponents say it protects the Legislature's appropriation power; neutral testimony from the Secretary of State's office emphasized the narrowness of the bill and that federally appropriated HAVA funds for election security would not be affected.

Next steps: Committee leadership indicated they plan to take up Senate Bill 5 again at a subsequent committee meeting.