Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mail Ballot Repeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing held on repeal of mail-only ballot law as proponents and clerks spar over turnout and costs
Summary
A hearing on House Bill 25-03, which would repeal the Mail Ballot Election Act (mail-only elections), featured a proponent who said mail-only ballots depress turnout and an opponent county clerk who said mail ballots often raise turnout and are administratively useful. Witnesses flagged drafting and statistical questions.
The Committee on Elections held a hearing on House Bill 25-03, which would repeal the state’s Mail Ballot Election Act and remove statutes that allow exclusively mail-only elections for certain question-only contests.
Representative Rivas, the bill’s proponent, said exclusively mail-in elections have discouraged participation, increased costs and produced poorly designed ballots that voters treated as junk mail in at least one Atchison school-district election. Rivas also told the committee that the U.S. Postal Service "no longer assures a postmark at all," a change he said affects the reliability of mailed ballots.
Rick Pfeiffer, Harvey County Clerk and chair of the Kansas County Clerk's and Election Officials Association Elections Committee, testified in opposition. He told members his experience shows mail-ballot elections often produce higher turnout for ballot questions — "We have turnout 50 to 60%" in mail-ballot contests compared with "20 to 30%" in some polling-place special elections — and said jurisdictions weigh costs and options differently.
Pfeiffer and other conferees also identified drafting concerns: Pfeiffer said the repeal as drafted would remove sections 4-31 through 4-40 but leave sections 4-32 and 4-33 orphaned, creating technical discrepancies that need correction. Committee members asked about the applicability of the state’s recent limits on special-election dates; witnesses said some special-election categories remain outside that new limitation.
Members asked about the three-day postmark 'grace period' that was changed in recent legislation; witnesses replied that the three-day rule did not apply to some all-mail election statutes. The committee did not take a vote on HB25-03 during the hearing; members closed testimony and moved on to other business.
The hearing drew testimony from legislative proponents, county election officials and civic advocates, and it highlighted both operational concerns (mail handling, postmarks, ballot design) and policy trade-offs (access vs. administration) that lawmakers will weigh if the bill is advanced.
