Kansas committee hears bill to expand tools for voter-roll maintenance, with privacy and oversight questions raised
Loading...
Summary
The Committee on Elections heard H.B. 2437, which would authorize monthly DMV matches, expanded use of Social Security death-index checks, death attestations and potential SAVE checks to identify registrations needing confirmation; proponents said it codifies existing practices while opponents warned the bill’s undefined NGO data language and a proposed CORA exemption could reduce transparency.
The Committee on Elections opened a hearing on H.B. 2437, a bill that would add tools and statutory timelines for maintaining Kansas voter registration rolls.
Mike Hyam of the Revisor’s office summarized the measure as adding a new trigger for confirmation notices based on information from the Division of Motor Vehicles when a registrant appears to have moved out of county; clarifying removal for death when the Social Security Administration match or a notarized close-relative attestation verifies death; and requiring the Secretary of State to provide counties with duplicate-check results at least twice a year and monthly DMV residency-change lists. The bill also would ask for an annual Social Security death-index comparison and permit use of SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlements) results and other state, federal or nongovernmental sources as additional inputs. Finally, it would add a limited open-records (CORA) exemption for investigative material with a five-year sunset.
Clay Barker, general counsel for the Kansas Secretary of State, told the committee the bill’s purpose is to give election officials “additional tools for voter roll maintenance.” He outlined four specific tools: DMV state-to-state verification to identify out‑of‑state moves; clarified use of Social Security death-index matches; a family-signed death-attestation process to allow removal when official documents are unavailable; and a change from five days to five business days for removing a voter after notice of a felony conviction. Barker said the office has already validated and removed about 5,400 deceased registrants using the Social Security death index.
Barker said the bill aims to define “reasonable effort” in statute so that the secretary’s office and counties have clearer authority and expectations for frequency of checks. He described deduplication twice yearly, monthly DMV feeds, and annual Social Security checks as codified practices that would be mandated by the bill. He also said the office views the proposed CORA exemption as protecting investigative data while preserving public notice about final removals.
Opponents raised several concerns. Davis Hammitt, president of Loud Light Civic Action, said the bill uses broad, undefined terms such as “nongovernmental entities,” “verified,” and “reliable means,” and that leaving those undefined risks misuse of private data and improper removal. Hammitt warned a broad CORA exemption could create an unreviewable “black box” that limits public scrutiny of roll‑maintenance decisions.
Committee members pressed for operational details: whether new work would require additional staff or contracts, whether counties could implement monthly DMV lists with current resources, and how the SAVE matches would be handled. Barker said the office prepared a fiscal note and expects to manage with fee-funded staff and with counties using current processes; he also emphasized that matches from SAVE or other sources are treated as leads that must be verified and that the individual always receives written notice before any removal is finalized. The committee also discussed safeguards for students and military voters and reiterated that provisional ballots remain available for anyone who appears at a polling place but is missing from rolls.
The hearing closed with members reserving the right to follow up on data requests, contract costs for any nongovernmental services, and the precise statutory definitions that opponents said are needed to prevent unintended consequences. The committee will consider next steps, including possible amendments, at a later meeting.
Ending: The committee did not take a vote; the hearing was closed and members signaled they may request additional data and amendments before any final action.
