Kansas House Bill HB2273

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/5/25
• Report Pass: 2/14/25
• Engrossed: 2/20/25
• Refer: 2/26/25

Caption

Adding a citation to the code of federal regulations to the definition of veteran and disabled veteran.

Summary

HB 2273 is a veterans-and-military cleanup bill that updates a wide range of Kansas statutes to use a more uniform definition of “veteran” and “disabled veteran.” Across the bill, those definitions are revised to expressly include certain service members covered by 38 C.F.R. § 3.7 and to tie eligibility to honorable or general discharges under honorable conditions. The bill also updates references from the Kansas Commission on Veterans Affairs Office to the Kansas Office of Veterans Services in several places, and it standardizes how service-connected disability percentages are used for different benefits. The bill touches many programs and benefits, including driver’s licenses and nondriver ID cards with veteran designations, disabled veteran hunting and fishing licenses, in-state tuition eligibility, consumer protection definitions, veterans’ preference in public employment, procurement preferences for disabled veteran businesses, Vietnam War era medallions, proof requirements for service-connected disability benefits, and homestead property tax refund eligibility. It also adjusts the threshold for some disabled veteran benefits, such as the hunting and fishing license and certain procurement or tax-related provisions, while leaving other programs tied to existing percentage standards in place. In effect, the bill is largely administrative and definitional, but it has real consequences for who qualifies for state-recognized veteran status and related benefits. The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The House passed HB 2273 on final action by a vote of 122-0, indicating unanimous support. The bill’s caption and structure suggest it was intended as a technical alignment measure requested by the Kansas Office of Veterans Services rather than a major policy overhaul. There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record, and no committee transcript excerpts were provided showing debate. The main point of potential significance is the scope of the definitional changes: by broadening or clarifying who counts as a veteran or disabled veteran under state law, the bill could affect eligibility for multiple benefits and preferences. Any contention would likely center on those eligibility standards and whether the revised definitions expand access, but no organized opposition is reflected in the vote history provided.

Impact

HB 2273 amends numerous Kansas statutes to incorporate updated federal regulatory citations and revised definitions of “veteran” and “disabled veteran.” It repeals and replaces existing sections in laws governing motor vehicle records, wildlife licenses, higher education residency and tuition, consumer protection, veterans’ employment preference, state procurement, veterans’ commemorative awards, proof of disability for benefits, and homestead property tax relief. The bill also updates references to the state veterans agency and aligns several provisions with current federal discharge and disability standards. The practical impact is to standardize eligibility across state programs that confer benefits or preferences on veterans, disabled veterans, surviving spouses, and military families. It may expand or clarify access for some applicants by expressly recognizing additional categories of service and by harmonizing state law with federal definitions and documentation standards. State agencies, counties, cities, and vendors seeking veteran-related preferences or benefits would need to apply the revised definitions and documentation rules.

Sentiment

The bill was received positively and appears to have been treated as a technical, pro-veteran measure. It passed the House unanimously, 122-0, which suggests broad bipartisan agreement and little controversy. The absence of recorded committee debate in the provided materials also points to a generally smooth legislative path.

Contention

No explicit opposition is shown in the available materials, but the most likely area of interest is the bill’s definitional changes. Because the bill revises who qualifies as a veteran or disabled veteran for multiple benefits, any contention would likely involve whether the new definitions broaden eligibility too far or alter existing benefit thresholds. Another possible point of concern is the bill’s use of federal citations and agency name changes, which could require administrative updates across several programs, though these appear to be technical rather than political disputes.