TOPEKA — The anti-transgender “bathroom bill” made a comeback in Kansas politics Monday after a GOP-led legislative committee pushed out legislation to force anyone using a bathroom in government buildings to use the facility matching their biological sex at birth. 

In an often antagonistic hearing, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to expand the focus of House Bill 2426, which would require Kansans to use their biological sex at birth on their driver’s licenses. The original bill received opponent feedback from more than 200 people. 

Rep. Bob Lewis, a Garden City Republican, offered the bathroom amendment shortly after the committee began working HB 2426, drawing ire from committee Democrats. There was no public notice that the committee would take action on the bill, and no public notice that the bathroom restriction would be added to it.

“We all thought that this bill was probably a bathroom bill, and now it’s showing its true colors,” said Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita. “What this bill is about, with this amendment, is making it so that people who are transgender or people who are intersex have no safe place to go to the bathroom.”

Lewis said no one would be denied access to a bathroom but would have to use the bathroom that matched their biological sex at birth. 

The amendment would require Kansas government buildings to designate multi-occupancy private spaces, such as bathrooms, locker rooms and shower rooms, as either male or female, Lewis said. Users would have to visit the facility that matched their biological sex at birth. 

Spaces that are single occupancy, such as family restrooms, could still be unisex, he said. The bill also set exceptions for when a person of the opposite sex could enter a bathroom to include complying with the Americans with Disability Act, rendering medical attention, and as necessary for law enforcement and for coaching, Lewis said. 

The bill outlines enforcement, including if a public building fails to maintain the spaces for male or female, he said. If an individual uses a bathroom not tied to their biological sex at birth, the first violation will result in a written notice from the governing body, which could be challenged at an administrative hearing. The second violation could be a $1,000 penalty, and the third would be a misdemeanor crime, Lewis said. 

An individual who is in the space that a person of the opposite sex enters also could bring a private action in court, which could result in paying attorneys fees and damages, he said. 

Carmichael, Rep. Lindsay Vaughn, D-Overland Park, and Rep. Dan Osman, D-Overland Park, objected to the introduction of the amendment that changed the bill significantly. Vaughn challenged whether it was germane to the original bill, saying that they were talking about driver’s licenses and then discussing “policing public spaces.” 

Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, the bill’s sponsor and committee chair, said she knew the issue would come up. She decided it was germane.  

When Vaughn pushed to understand her reasoning, Humphries said, “I’m not going to go into detail other than —”

“It’s about discriminating against trans people,” Vaughn said. 

“No, it’s about sex, the definition of gender and sex,” Humphries said. 

Once the amendment passed with the committee’s Republican majority voting in favor, Humphries made a motion for a “gut and go,” placing the contents of HB 2426 into Senate Bill 244, which was about compensated surety when passed by the Senate. 

Osman questioned what the gut-and-go would mean for the bill process, and a legislative staffer said the Senate would not have to have a hearing on the bathroom bill. 

“This is an attempt to obfuscate what we’re doing here,” Carmichael said. “If you’re in favor of a lack of transparency, if you’re in favor of taking bill numbers and playing them like a shell game, this is the amendment for you.” 

Carmichael referred to Attorney General Kris Kobach’s attempt to enforce a previous bill that stopped gender marker changes on driver’s licenses. 

Although the 90-minute hearing was running late, he read through what the court thought of the previous attempt by the Legislature to change gender markers, ending by criticizing the rushed process taken by the Judiciary Committee to combine and pass the bill. 

The result, he said, puts a sign in the state of Kansas that says “transgender persons, intersex people, there’s no public place for you to pee, that you’re not welcome in Kansas, that as far as your community is concerned, Kansas had better be a flyover state because you’re not welcome here.”

Humphries reiterated that the bill is about safety. 

“I think this bill that we’re going to vote on has to do with legislative intent. I think it has to do with truth, accuracy. I think it has to do with public safety,” she said. “I think it has to do with the vast majority of people in Kansas. And I appreciate all of the discussion. I know we have different opinions on harm.”

Humphries provided no evidence of safety issues. 

Vaughn said no evidence of harm has been shown in various court proceedings, although the state has been changing gender markers on driver’s licenses for 16 years. 

However, she said Humphries’ bill endangers transgender people. 

“You say that they can use the restroom, but they are being intimidated in public spaces by this bill to not use the restroom that aligns with their gender and presentation,” she said. “You’re turning everyday Kansans into the gender police, and making it harder for people who already experience some of the greatest rates of violence in our community.”

The full House and Senate would need to vote on SB 244, and override a potential veto from Kelly with two-thirds majorities in both chambers, before it can become law.

In 2023, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 180, called the “women’s bill of rights,” that defined women by their biological sex at birth, which Kobach used to try to stop gender marker changes on driver’s licenses and birth certificates. The bill also allowed transgender people to be barred from bathrooms. 

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly at the time ordered the state to continue to change gender markers on driver’s licenses and birth certificates, which resulted in Kobach filing a lawsuit. The Kansas Court of Appeals in 2025 said Kobach had not shown that harm occurred from changing gender markers and overturned an initial finding in Kobach’s favor from a lower court. 

Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com. Follow Kansas Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.

Latest state news:

MORE …