Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Voter Id Constitutional Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears proponents and opponents on placing voter ID in the Kansas Constitution
Summary
Supporters said HCR 50-21 would lock photo-identification requirements into the Kansas Constitution to preserve election-security measures; opponents argued the amendment is unnecessary, could narrow acceptable ID types, and risk disenfranchising vulnerable voters.
The House Committee on Elections took testimony on House Concurrent Resolution 50-21, a proposed amendment to Article V of the Kansas Constitution that would require voters to present photographic identification issued by the state or federal government and place the matter on the ballot for an August 4, 2026, referendum.
Proponents, including Clay Barker (Secretary of State general counsel), local Republican officials and national polling advocates, argued a constitutional amendment would protect public confidence in elections by making photo ID a constitutional baseline while allowing the legislature to set implementation details. Barker said enshrining photo ID would prevent collateral legal challenges to the statutory framework and cited KSA 25 29 0 8 as the statutory vehicle that lays out acceptable ID types and exemptions.
Supporters also cited examples of other states that have adopted constitutional voter ID measures and polling data showing strong public support. Chris McAllen, reading written testimony, and Jacqueline Doyer of Honest Elections Project ACTION highlighted recent state-level votes where similar amendments passed.
Opponents — including representatives of the ACLU, voting-rights advocates and civic groups — said HCR 50-21 would embed a potentially restrictive framework in the constitution that could be harder to change than statute. Anne Mah told the committee the current law may exceed court standards and that the amendment could be vulnerable to litigation; Logan DeMond of the ACLU of Kansas warned the change would disproportionately affect seniors, people with disabilities, young voters and people of color and would reduce the legislature's ability to respond to access issues.
Neutral testimony from Catherine Bennett (ALEC) reiterated implementation best practices such as providing free state IDs, extended office hours and provisional ballot options, but the committee did not vote on the resolution. The chair closed the hearing and adjourned the committee.
