Kansas House Judiciary committee hears hours of testimony on bill to define "gender" on IDs and birth records

Topeka — The House Committee on Judiciary heard more than three hours of testimony on House Bill 2426, a proposal to define the term “gender” in state law as the biological sex assigned at birth and to require state agencies to reissue driver’s licenses and birth certificates so they match that definition.

Attorney General Chris Kobach, one of the bill’s principal proponents, told the committee the measure is intended to reverse a Court of Appeals ruling in Kansas v. Harper that he said allowed agencies to treat a person’s birth sex differently in databases and on physical documents. “The Court of Appeals seized on any ambiguity they could find to come up with a position that renders the bill … a dead letter,” Kobach said, and he pointed to the bill’s addition of the word “only” in a statutory subsection as the key change to remove that ambiguity.

Jason Long of the Office of Reviser of Statutes summarized the draft, saying it would amend the women’s bill of rights (SB180, codified at KSA 77-207) to equate gender and sex as the biological characteristic at birth, add a section to the Uniform Vital Statistics Act directing corrected birth certificates, and require the motor vehicles division to notify and reissue licenses that do not conform. Long noted the bill’s statutory-book effective date is 07/01/2026.

Law-enforcement and medical witnesses testified in favor. Bob Stewart, executive officer of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, said accurate identification in the field and consistent database records improve officer and subject safety and assist custody-placement decisions. “Having correct information on that driver’s license is important not only for database integrity, but for how we share with other states, our federal partners,” Stewart said. Doctors who supported the bill said sex and gender are critical clinical data for emergency diagnosis and treatment and argued inconsistent markers could delay care.

Opponents called the bill harmful to transgender, nonbinary and intersex Kansans and disputed proponents’ claims about public-safety benefits. Melissa Styler of Loud Light Civic Action said the measure would “weaponize civil-rights terminology” and exclude people from services and protections; other witnesses described personal fear and incidents of violence and urged lawmakers to consider the human cost. "This bill would also harm public safety by threatening unreported crime and lack of cooperation with police and the courts," Styler said.

Several opponents and parents described administrative and legal complications if state documents were retroactively invalidated and reissued. Witnesses pointed to possible conflicts across federal and state identification, the logistical burden of mass reissuance and the stress for individuals whose documents would change. One committee assistant said roughly 240 pieces of written opponent testimony will be condensed for posting.

Committee members questioned proponents about the litigation record and the factual basis for claims that mismatched gender markers had caused arrests or custody errors. Kobach and witnesses said law-enforcement testimony was part of the district-court record but acknowledged the Court of Appeals disagreed on whether that evidence established irreparable harm at the preliminary-injunction stage.

Chairwoman Susan Humphreys said the committee would not work the bill the next day to allow more time for members to review the materials, including a pending fiscal note. She closed the hearing and said written testimony and the fiscal note would be posted when available.

What’s next: The committee did not take a vote or adopt any amendments at the hearing; members said they will review written testimony and the fiscal note before deciding whether and when to work the bill.