An Act Concerning An Evaluation Of The Updating Of State Forms And Applications To Include A Nonbinary Gender Option.
HB 6847 requires each state agency that provides printed or electronic forms or applications to the public to conduct an evaluation of what would be needed to update those forms so that, when they ask for sex or gender, they include a nonbinary gender option. The bill does not itself mandate immediate changes to all forms; instead, it creates a statewide review process to identify which forms need revision and what resources would be required to make those revisions.
Under the bill, state agencies must complete their evaluations by January 1, 2027 and submit summaries of their findings to the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management. The secretary must then compile the agency results into a report and deliver it to the General Assembly’s committee with jurisdiction over government administration by February 15, 2027. The bill applies broadly across executive, legislative, and judicial branch agencies, as well as higher education and technical education entities, but excludes state-operated health care facilities.
The bill’s impact on state law is procedural and administrative rather than immediately substantive. It adds a new statutory requirement for agencies to assess the feasibility, scope, and resource needs of revising public-facing forms and applications to include a nonbinary gender choice. If implemented, the evaluations could set the stage for later statewide form updates and policy changes affecting how residents interact with state government.
The general sentiment reflected in the available vote history appears favorable but not unanimous. The Joint Favorable Substitute passed the Government Administration and Elections Committee 14-5, suggesting majority support for the bill’s study-and-report approach while also indicating some opposition or reservations. No transcript excerpts were provided, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote split suggests the issue may have drawn differing views on the need for the evaluation and the scope of gender-related form changes.
The main point of contention is likely the requirement that agencies review and potentially revise a wide range of forms to accommodate a nonbinary option, which could raise questions about administrative burden, cost, implementation timelines, and the breadth of affected agencies. Supporters are likely focused on inclusivity and ensuring state forms reflect gender diversity, while opponents may be concerned about the necessity, expense, or policy implications of changing state paperwork across government.
The bill creates a new reporting and evaluation requirement for state agencies that use public-facing printed or electronic forms or applications asking for sex or gender. It does not directly amend existing form statutes or require immediate redesign of all forms, but it establishes a statutory process that could lead to future administrative changes across state government. Agencies must assess needed revisions and resource requirements, and OPM must compile and report the results to the legislature.
The available voting record shows moderate support for the bill, with the Joint Favorable Substitute passing the Government Administration and Elections Committee 14-5. That margin suggests the proposal was generally viewed favorably as an evaluation measure, but not without opposition. Because no committee transcript excerpts were provided, the specific arguments are not documented here, though the split vote indicates some disagreement over the bill’s necessity, scope, or administrative implications.
The likely points of contention are the administrative burden and cost of reviewing and potentially updating a broad range of state forms, the timeline for completing the evaluations, and whether state government should formally add a nonbinary option across public applications. Supporters would emphasize inclusivity and modernization of state forms, while opponents may question the need for a statewide mandate or worry about implementation complexity across many agencies.