Kansas House Bill HB2719

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/26
• Refer: 2/5/26
• Report Pass: 2/16/26
• Engrossed: 2/24/26
• Refer: 2/25/26
• Report Pass: 3/10/26
• Enrolled: 3/26/26
• Vetoed: 4/9/26
• Override: 4/9/26

Caption

Providing an exception to the rules and regulations filing act for technical amendments, creating a process for certain rules and regulations to receive priority status in the adoption process, removing references to revival of rules and regulations, clarifying that the department of the budget is not required to approve proposed rules and regulations mandated by the federal government, adding references to department of corrections rules and regulations that are not subject to the act and requiring an agency submit a proposed rule and regulation to the joint committee on administrative rules and regulations prior to presentation of a bill to the legislature for ratification.

Summary

HB 2719 revises Kansas’s Rules and Regulations Filing Act to streamline some agency rulemaking steps and tighten others. The bill creates an exception allowing agencies to make purely technical amendments to existing rules without starting a full new rulemaking proceeding, so long as the changes are nonsubstantive and approved by the Department of Administration. It also creates a “priority status” process for rules that the Legislature has specifically directed an agency to adopt, requiring those rules to be processed ahead of other pending rules by the relevant review offices. The bill also updates and reorganizes several provisions governing how rules are filed, noticed, reviewed, and adopted. It clarifies definitions, removes references to the “revival” of rules, and updates the treatment of agency guidance, forms, and internal policies. In addition, it preserves and reinforces special exemptions for certain education and corrections-related policies and rules, and it requires public notice and comment procedures before adoption of most rules. A major substantive change is the treatment of economically significant rules. HB 2719 keeps the existing framework requiring economic impact statements and budget director review, but clarifies that rules mandated by federal law do not need budget director approval before filing. It also maintains the rule that proposed rules with implementation and compliance costs of $1 million or more over five years generally cannot be adopted unless ratified by the Legislature. The bill further requires agencies to submit proposed rules to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations before presenting a ratification bill to the Legislature. The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial in terms of final votes: it passed the House and Senate unanimously at first, and later both chambers overwhelmingly voted to override a veto. That voting history suggests broad bipartisan support for the bill’s administrative streamlining and oversight provisions, even though the veto indicates there was at least some executive-level disagreement with the package. The main points of contention likely centered on the balance between administrative efficiency and legislative control over agency rulemaking. Supporters would view the technical-amendment shortcut and priority processing as practical improvements, while critics could object to the added procedural layers for major rules, the legislative ratification requirement for high-cost regulations, and the expanded role of legislative review in the rulemaking process. The federal-mandate exemption and corrections-related carveouts also reflect targeted policy choices that may have been debated as to scope and necessity.

Impact

HB 2719 amends the Kansas statutes governing administrative rules and regulations, especially K.S.A. 75-3504 and 77-415 through 77-441, and repeals K.S.A. 77-418. It changes how agencies draft, review, file, and publish rules by adding a technical-amendment exception, a priority-status process for legislatively mandated rules, updated notice and comment requirements, and clarifications about when budget director approval is not required. It also preserves the existing legislative ratification trigger for rules with projected five-year compliance costs of $1 million or more, while exempting federal-mandate rules from that approval step.

Sentiment

The bill’s voting history indicates very strong support overall. It passed both chambers initially without opposition, and both the House and Senate later voted to override a veto by large margins. That pattern suggests the measure was broadly viewed as a procedural and oversight reform rather than a partisan policy fight, with most legislators supporting the changes to agency rulemaking and legislative review.

Contention

The likely areas of disagreement were not about the bill’s core structure so much as about the degree of control it gives the Legislature and the procedural burden it places on agencies. Supporters likely favored the streamlined treatment of technical amendments, clearer filing rules, and the exemption for federally mandated regulations. Opponents or the vetoing authority likely objected to the expanded legislative ratification process for costly rules, the added prefiling review by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations, and the possibility that these requirements could slow agency implementation or reduce administrative flexibility.