Kansas Senate committee hears debate on signature verification bill with conditional repealer

Senate Federal and State Affairs heard testimony on Senate Bill 394, which would (1) make envelope language for advanced voting ballots consistent across statutes and (2) add a conditional repealer tied to any final, nonappealable court order that invalidates the state’s signature-verification requirement.

The bill brief and supporter testimony centered on preserving the integrity of mail voting when litigation challenges signature verification. Clay Barker, general counsel for the Kansas Secretary of State, said the measure is intended to make clear the legislature’s intent that signature verification is integral to mail balloting. “Kansas has one of the best procedures for signature verification in the nation,” Barker said, describing uniform statewide procedures, a two-person review standard and opportunities for voters to be contacted and cure their ballot. Barker added that the envelope-language change would take effect July 1 and that the conditional repealer would only trigger after a final, nonappealable court order and public notice in the Kansas Register.

A separate proponent, Jay Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, told the committee he has litigated election-fraud cases and urged members to view absentee ballots as more vulnerable than in-person voting. He recommended the committee review a federal decision he cited in written materials, United States v. Ike Brown, as evidence of forged mail ballots.

Opponents said the conditional repealer effectively threatens to end mail voting if courts intervene to protect voters. Logan Damond, director of policy and research at the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, said signature-matching is unreliable for some voters, including people with disabilities, people whose signatures change over time, and those who use different signing methods. “This is erecting a new barrier, essentially,” Damond said, arguing the bill could disenfranchise voters and that the legislature should instead strengthen uniform standards and training for signature review.

Committee members asked practical questions about implementation and cost. Senator Francisco asked how voters would know what signature is on file; the bill’s presenters said county election offices could provide guidance and that current law requires county election officers to contact voters before rejecting a ballot for signature mismatch. Senator Starnes asked about county cost estimates; proponents said the secretary of state had budgeted outreach funds but deferred operational cost questions to county officials. Witnesses cited data: Barker said roughly 300,000 mail ballots were reported to the federal government as returned in recent elections and that 224 were ultimately rejected for signature inconsistency when voters did not cure the ballot; the source of those specific figures was the Secretary of State’s office testimony to the committee.

The committee received written testimony in support and opposition; no neutral testimony was offered. After roughly equal blocks for proponents and opponents and follow-up questions from members, the committee closed the hearing on SB 394. No final action or vote on the bill occurred at the hearing; the committee chair announced upcoming hearings on other bills and adjourned.

The record contains written testimony from Missy Levitt, Justin Reimer and Debbie Detmer and referenced guidance for overseas voters under UOCAVA. The bill includes statutory references in the 25-11 series governing ballot envelopes and signature procedures and would require publication in the Kansas Register to activate the conditional repealer.