Kansas Enacts Controversial Voter Roll Measure: The Story of HB2020
In a move sparking significant debate, Kansas House Bill 2020 has become law, set to take effect upon publication in the statute book. While officially designated as "Passed," its journey concluded unusually – it will become law without the Governor's signature, a detail hinting at the contentious nature of the legislation. HB2020 mandates a new level of data sharing between state agencies, specifically targeting noncitizens who hold Kansas driver's licenses.
What Does HB2020 Do?
The core purpose of KS HB2020, as outlined in the introduced version of the bill, is to require the director of the Kansas Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to compile and send a quarterly report to the Kansas Secretary of State (SoS). This report must contain detailed personal information – including names, addresses, phone numbers, social security or alien registration numbers, dates of birth, and driver's license details – for every noncitizen issued a permanent or temporary driver's license during that quarter.
The bill doesn't stop there. It explicitly directs the Secretary of State to compare this list against the state's official voter registration rolls. If a match is found – meaning a noncitizen license holder appears on the voter rolls – the SoS is mandated to remove that individual's name. The removed individual will be notified and informed they can only be reinstated by providing proof of U.S. citizenship.
This legislation amends the existing statute K.S.A. 8-240, which governs driver's license applications. That statute already details requirements for proving identity and lawful presence in the U.S. to obtain a license, including provisions for temporary licenses tied to the duration of an individual's authorized stay (as outlined in subsection (b)(3) of the statute). HB2020 adds a new subsection (k) mandating this quarterly reporting.
A Contentious Legislative Path
HB2020's journey through the Kansas legislature began on January 16, 2025, when it was introduced in the House and initially referred to the Committee on Transportation. However, in a swift procedural move the very next day, it was withdrawn from Transportation (a committee with a relatively high Power Score of 75.0) and rerouted to the Committee on Elections (Power Score 32.0). This shift potentially signaled the bill's primary intended focus: election administration rather than transportation policy.
A hearing in the Elections committee occurred on January 21st, and the committee recommended the bill pass, albeit with amendments, on January 28th.
The bill faced significant opposition during floor debate in the House Committee of the Whole on February 5th. Multiple amendments, primarily offered by Representative Oropeza and Representative Haskins, were decisively rejected with wide margins (Yea: 31 Nay: 85; Yea: 31 Nay: 86; Yea: 29 Nay: 86; Yea: 30 Nay: 85). Amendments by Representative Poetter Parshall were also rejected. This pattern strongly indicated a lack of bipartisan support and a firm resolve by the majority party to pass the bill largely as intended by the committee.
Despite the failed amendment attempts, the House passed HB2020 as amended on February 6th with a vote of 83 Yea to 34 Nay.
The bill then moved to the Senate, where it was introduced on February 6th and referred to the Committee on Federal and State Affairs (Power Score 47.0) on February 7th. Following a hearing on March 5th, the Senate committee recommended passage with further amendments on March 10th.
The full Senate passed the amended bill via Emergency Final Action on March 19th, with a vote of 32 Yea to 8 Nay, again showing a clear division but a strong majority in favor.
The House quickly concurred with the Senate amendments on March 20th (Yea: 83 Nay: 35), reaffirming the original House support levels.
The bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor on March 25th. However, rather than signing or vetoing, the Governor allowed the bill to proceed, and on April 10th, it was recorded that HB2020 would become law without the Governor's signature.
Sponsor and Political Context
The primary sponsor of HB2020 was Representative Pat Proctor (Rep), whose LegiEquity Effectiveness Score is 10.0. The bill clearly lacked bipartisan support, as evidenced by the voting patterns in both chambers and the rejection of multiple floor amendments offered by minority party members.
The passage of HB2020 occurs within a broader national context of heightened debate surrounding election security and voter eligibility. Proponents often frame such measures as necessary safeguards against potential noncitizen voting, while opponents raise concerns about voter suppression, data privacy, the targeting of immigrant communities, and the potential for errors in database matching leading to the wrongful disenfranchisement of eligible citizens.
LegiEquity Analysis: High Bias Detected
LegiEquity's analysis of HB2020 reveals significant concerns, assigning an Overall Impact score of 80% Bias with High Confidence. This high score suggests the legislation disproportionately affects specific demographic groups.
The analysis indicates a strong bias based on race (80%), particularly impacting Asian/Pacific Islander (AP: 80% Bias) and Latinx (LX: 90% Bias) communities. This is likely linked to the fact that noncitizen status, and thus the likelihood of holding the types of temporary licenses targeted by this bill, correlates strongly with these racial and ethnic groups in the state.
Furthermore, a 70% Bias score related to age (specifically AD - Adult) suggests potential disproportionate impacts based on age, possibly related to the demographics of those holding temporary work visas or other forms of temporary lawful presence often associated with younger or working-age adults.
The mechanism of the bill – using DMV data on noncitizens to actively purge voter rolls – inherently targets individuals based on their immigration status. While aimed at preventing noncitizen voting, the LegiEquity analysis indicates this approach carries a high risk of discriminatory impact, potentially chilling participation even among eligible voters in immigrant communities and creating administrative hurdles that disproportionately affect certain racial and age groups.
Conclusion: A Law Born of Division
Kansas HB2020 represents a significant policy shift, creating a direct pipeline from noncitizen driver's license data to voter roll maintenance. Its journey through the legislature was marked by partisan division, culminating in its passage into law without the explicit endorsement of the Governor's signature. While proponents argue for its necessity in ensuring election integrity, the LegiEquity analysis underscores the high potential for biased outcomes, particularly impacting racial minorities and specific age groups within Kansas. The real-world consequences of this data-sharing mandate will unfold as the Secretary of State begins implementing these quarterly reviews.
LegiEquity analyzes proposed legislation to determine its potential impact on various demographic groups. Our goal is to provide objective insights into how laws may affect different communities.
Related Articles
You might also be interested in these articles