Elections committee approves bill to tighten voter-roll matching and reporting
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 2437, amended to add quarterly DMV reporting and conditional use of the SAVE database, passed the committee after debate over fiscal effects; Legislative Research said the state would spend $11,000 in FY27 to develop matching processes and counties warned of possible local costs.
The Committee on Elections passed House Bill 2437 as amended, a measure that expands mechanisms for removing ineligible names from voter registration lists and directs the Secretary of State to use outside data sources to verify voter eligibility.
The reviser described the bill as amending the voter-registration statute (transcript citation: '20 five-2316c') to add removal triggers when a registered voter appears on a Social Security Administration list of deceased individuals verified by other reliable means, or when a voter declares death by notarized attestation. The bill also directs the Secretary of State to obtain and share information with county election officers for roll cleanup.
During committee debate, Jillian of Legislative Research said the Secretary of State would use existing resources to update training and public materials, while the Department of Revenue estimated an $11,000 FY27 cost to develop and test processes that retrieve and match information and produce monthly reports. The Kansas Association of Counties told the committee that counties may face additional costs if they must hire staff to process removals but could not estimate a total.
The vice chairman offered a large committee amendment that incorporates elements from other bills—requiring the Division of Motor Vehicles to provide quarterly lists of driver-license changes, using the SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database for flagging noncitizens while batch uploads and Social Security number use remain available, and aligning DMV reporting frequency to quarterly. Ranking minority member Reinking objected to the size of the amendment and moved to table; that motion failed and the committee adopted the amendment and then passed the bill as amended.
Several members asked that their opposition be recorded in the minutes when they voted against the amendment and the bill.
What happens next: HB2437 moves to the House calendar. Committee debate focused on the fiscal and administrative impacts—Jillian said an $11,000 state cost is expected for one-time development in FY27, while counties cautioned local resource needs might be higher.
