You watch a news story about the hearing here. Below you will find the complete testimony that I provided on behalf of Kansas NOW against the bill.

A voter and elections bill may seem like an unusual issue for a women's rights organization to become involved with, but Kansas NOW recognizes that the provisions contained within this bill will disenfranchise many women. These are women of low income, single mothers, married women, divorced women, minority women and senior women. Busy women who need the voting process to be as smooth, as easy and as efficient as possible. Making their right to cast their vote as convenient as possible is a good thing, not something to be feared or reviled.

I have here with me today, several of my social security cards that I have held through the years and a copy of a family tree that I created to show how I came to hold all of these names. You see, I am a product of multiple marriages, adoptions and divorces. My signature varies from card to card, as it has changed through my 38 years of life, just like I have.

While contemplating the consequences to Secretary Kobach's bill, I found myself wondering what obstacles I would encounter should I find a need to re-register, perhaps for a change of residence. It occurred to me that this might be quite an ordeal, quite a path to explain to an election official, with my current name so far removed from my birth certificate. It seemed evident to me that I would need to show a slew of documentation to prove that I owned my name and my citizenship.

But low and behold...there is an exception contained within the bill for people already registered within the state of Kansas at the time of the bill's adoption That may indicatte that there is nothing wrong with the current system, but I digress...it is convenient. But, according to a statement from Kay Curtis at the Secretary of State's office, "Newcomers to our state with name changes such as mine, could use another form of ID, such as a passport to prove their citizenship". To that I say, women who are struggling to pay their bills and make ends meat are not likely to be world travelers. Hence, they will in fact, have to provide a slew of documentation.

Secretary Kobach states in the same article, "In the case of married women who have changed their name, the citizenship proof could be a marriage certificate or possibly just their driver's license, in addition to the birth certificate." In response to Secretary Kobach, I have a story provided to me by a Kansas NOW member her name is Anne Prichett. She is unable to be here, as she is one of those busy women that I speak on behalf of today. She was unable to get a day off from her teaching responsibilities.

Anne's mother was born at home in Kansas City KS in 1925. She never had a birth certificate. She never needed one until she was 80 years old and moved to Missouri and wanted to register to vote. She was able to get a drivers license as a teenager in the 1940s and drove for over 60 years. She also worked for 40 years for a government contractor and her job required a security clearance every couple years. And she was always cleared, even though she had never had a birth certificate.

When her health declined in her 70s, she voluntarily declined to renew her license because she didn't feel like she could drive safely anymore. And until she changed residence and wanted to register to vote, this was not a problem. Anne's father was also born at home in 1923. And also never had a birth certificate. But he was able to enlist in the armed forces to fight in WWII. Sadly, her mother died before she could resolve her identity issues. But many members of their peer group are still alive and have served their country and paid taxes for decades.

While Secretary Kobach has included a provision within this bill that allow seniors to show an expired ID, what of those that do not have one? What if this same woman moved from another state into Kansas to be with family? Would we want to be the state that shows her such a complete lack of hospitality as she lives out her golden years? Would we want her to die without her guaranteed right to vote?

This bill simply does NOT does keep the public interest in mind. It is inefficient and short sighted. If there is an issue with undocumented voters or voting irregularities, shouldn't an administrative fix be sought or at least an incremental change rather than the drastic and expensive changes proposed? Non-incremental policy proposals are unpredictable in their consequences.

We must consider... what is the value of one vote? It certainly means a lot to Secretary Kobach. It certainly meant a lot to Anne's mother. Incremental change ensures avoidance of serious lasting mistakes. There is no doubt that Secretary Kobach is an intelligent guy, he graduated from Harvard, Oxford and Yale. So why isn't he applying a little bit of Kansas common sense with this bill?

The proponents of this bill claim that they have the support of the majority of the public. However, I contend that the public may support the stated intention of this bill, but they certainly do not support this bill in its entirety. A recent Manhattan Mercury poll asking the question "Do you support Secretary of State Kris Kobach's move to give his office the power to prosecute alleged cases of voter fraud? 73% stated no, while only 27% stated yes.

The questions that have been posed to Secretary Kobach regarding his pet project have been answered with generalizations and anecdotes (an-ik-dotes) that do not allow for reasonable and factual examination of the proposed legislation. I would call the disenfranchisement created by this bill an unintended consequence, but I contend that these consequences are consequences of intention. That might seem alarmist, but I can see few positive effects from this bill as currently presented. It creates a maze for legitimate voters. A maze full of bureaucratic red tape, a maze built with taxpayer funding, built during a session in which we can ill afford to waste any time, nor money on such a selfish and fruitless endeavor.