Committee debates conditional repeal language for signature verification and advance voting
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 394 would add assistance language for advance ballot envelopes and contains a conditional repealer that would repeal advance voting statutes if a court finds signature-verification requirements unconstitutional and the secretary publishes that finding; a conceptual amendment to strike the repeal failed and senators agreed to work on timing language.
The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee reviewed Senate Bill 394 on Feb. 20, a measure that would modify language about assistance for advance voting ballot envelopes and includes a conditional repealer tied to a court finding about signature verification.
Jason summarized the bill: it would add language that permits assistance with signing an advance ballot envelope when a voter's signature differs from the one on file and would add a conditional repealer — new section 1 — that directs the Secretary of State to publish in the Kansas Register if a court issues a final order finding the signature-verification requirement (identified in the bill as "KSA 25 dash 11 24 h") unconstitutional. Upon that publication, the bill would repeal the advanced voting statutes, except for narrow federal exceptions (UOCAVA) for uniformed and overseas voters.
Senator Francisco moved a conceptual amendment to strike new section 1 and change the bill description, arguing that an automatic repeal triggered by court publication could remove advance voting without meaningful legislative review and could create timing problems if the publication occurred close to an election. Senator Thomas, Senator Gossage and others debated whether publication in the Kansas Register could be immediate and what protections would exist for ballots already mailed; committee staff and Jason explained that publication is weekly and that repeal would take effect on publication, potentially within a week or two of a court order. Senators discussed special sessions and trailer legislation as possible responses but noted those remedies could be impractical if the timing is close to an election.
The conceptual amendment to strike new section 1 was moved and seconded; on a voice vote the amendment failed. Senators then agreed to pause final action and for committee staff to work with the Secretary of State’s office (Clay Barker was noted in the record) to craft narrower language addressing timing and operational protections (for example, particular cutoff dates or transitional rules) before the committee finishes work.
Committee members repeatedly emphasized concerns about timing, communication to county election officials, and the need for clear statutory language to avoid disrupting ballots already mailed close to an election. The committee did not vote on final passage of SB394 during the session and left further drafting for a subsequent meeting.
