Does Kansas City, Kansas's Community ID card program for undocumented residents break state or federal law?

Plain-English summary

The Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City asked the Attorney General to review its Community ID card ordinance, adopted after the Legislature passed a law barring cities from restricting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The card lets residents, including those without other government-issued ID, prove identity and residency to local officials, but it is explicitly marked "Not valid for state ID" and does not ask about immigration status.

On the state-law question, the opinion concluded the program does not violate Kansas's human smuggling statute. Issuing a card does not "harbor" or "conceal" anyone, since the card actually records the holder's identity with the government rather than hiding it, and the person issuing the card typically has no way of knowing an applicant's immigration status, so the required knowing mental state is missing. Possessing a card likewise does not violate the statute, since the law targets one person acting on behalf of another, not an individual's own efforts to remain in the country. But the opinion reached a different conclusion under federal law: because the Unified Government's own public statements described the program as designed to help undocumented residents who "cannot obtain state-issued IDs," the opinion found the program likely encourages or induces unlawful presence under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and is likely preempted more broadly as an obstacle to federal immigration enforcement. Separately, the opinion concluded that because the card system counts as a repository of "vital statistics" under K.S.A. 77-207(c), the Unified Government must record and display each cardholder's biological sex at birth, not a self-designated gender.

What this means for you

City and county attorneys reviewing or drafting municipal ID card programs: the opinion holds that a card limited to proving identity and residency, without asking about immigration status, does not itself violate the state human smuggling statute, but a program whose stated purpose is to help undocumented residents evade the practical effects of lacking state ID is at risk of federal preemption under 8 U.S.C. § 1324.

Local governments maintaining ID or vital-statistics recordkeeping systems: the opinion confirms that K.S.A. 77-207(c) requires any political subdivision that collects vital statistics like birth dates to record and display each person's biological sex at birth, which overrides a card design that would otherwise let a holder select a self-designated gender for display.

Residents and advocates evaluating whether a Community ID card protects someone from a state smuggling charge: the opinion states plainly that merely holding such a card is not itself a crime under K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1), because the statute requires one person acting to transport, harbor, or conceal a different individual.

Common questions

Can a Kansas city be prosecuted for running a program like this under the state's human smuggling law?
Not under the human smuggling statute itself, according to the opinion; providing a Community ID card lacks the "harboring or concealing" element and, in most cases, the required knowledge that an applicant is unlawfully present.

Does the program violate federal law even if it's fine under Kansas's own smuggling statute?
The opinion concludes it likely does, because the Unified Government's own explanation of the program's purpose, helping people who cannot get state IDs because of their immigration status, implicates the federal crime of encouraging or inducing unlawful presence, and the program is likely preempted as an obstacle to federal immigration objectives.

Does a Community ID card have to show the holder's biological sex at birth?
Yes, according to the opinion. Because the card program collects vital statistics like birth dates, K.S.A. 77-207(c) requires the political subdivision's data set, and therefore the card that reflects it, to identify each person by biological sex at birth rather than a self-designated gender.

Background and statutory framework

K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1) defines "human smuggling" as intentionally transporting, harboring, or concealing an individual while knowing or having reason to know the person is unlawfully present, benefiting financially, and knowing the person is likely to be exploited for another's financial gain. The Community ID card ordinance replaced an earlier version after the Legislature passed K.S.A. 12-16,140, which bars municipalities from restricting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and K.S.A. 12-16,142, which requires municipal ID cards to state they are not valid for state identification purposes.

Separately, K.S.A. 77-207(c) requires any political subdivision that collects vital statistics for anti-discrimination compliance or for gathering public health, crime, or economic data to identify each person in that data set by biological sex at birth. On the federal side, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) criminalizes concealing, harboring, or shielding an unlawfully present alien from detection, as well as encouraging or inducing a person to come to or remain in the country unlawfully. The opinion applied ordinary preemption principles, that a state or local law is displaced where it stands as an obstacle to the full purposes of a federal regulatory scheme, to conclude the Community ID program's stated purpose of assisting residents who lack state ID because of their immigration status likely runs into that federal framework, even though the card itself does not violate the narrower state smuggling statute.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- K.S.A. 12-16,139 (incl. (c), (d)); 12-16,140(a); 12-16,142
- K.S.A. 21-5108; 21-5202 (incl. (h), (i)); 21-5432(a)(1)
- K.S.A. 77-207 (incl. (a)(1), (c))
- 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), (iv), (v)(II)

Cases:
- Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2010)
- United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762 (2023)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ks.gov/reports-resources/ag-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.ks.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/23096/638804820942000000

Original opinion text

April 17, 2025

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2025-8

Angela J. Lawson
Acting Chief Counsel
Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City
701 North Seventh Street, 9th Floor
Kansas City, Kansas 66101

Re: Cities and Municipalities—Miscellaneous Provisions

        Crimes and Punishments—Kansas Criminal Code—Crimes Against
        Persons

        Statutes; Administrative Rules and Regulations and Procedure—
        Statutory Construction

Synopsis: The Kansas City, Kansas Community Identification Act adopted by the
Unified Government does not facially violate K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1).
Because the person providing a Community ID card would not
necessarily know an applicant's immigration status, the person would
likely lack the mens rea required under K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1)(A).
Additionally, it would be difficult for anyone to violate K.S.A. 21-
5432(a)(1)(C) because it is unlikely the person providing the
Community ID card as provided in the ordinance would ever know an
applicant was being exploited for the financial gain of another.
However, it is possible, in particular instances where this information
is known, issuance of the card could violate the law.

        A similar reasoning applies to a person possessing the Community ID
        card. Because a Community ID card does not purport to establish a
        person's legal presence in the United States, and because a
        Community ID card applicant must give identifying and residence
        information to a government entity, mere possession of a Community
        ID card cannot amount to the bearer harboring or concealing oneself.

        However, the Community ID card program does implicate 8 U.S.C.
        § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which makes it a crime to "encourage[ ] or induce[ ]
        an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in
        reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is
        or will be in violation of law." The Unified Government clearly
        intended to facilitate the continued unlawful presence of illegal aliens
        when it acted to create the Community ID card program. The program
        therefore stands as an obstacle to accomplishment of Congress's
        objectives and is likely preempted.

        The ordinance is also subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 77-207 as the
        ordinance requires the collection of "vital statistics." Cited herein:
        K.S.A. 12-16,139; K.S.A. 12-16,140; K.S.A. 12-16,142; K.S.A. 21-5108;
        K.S.A. 21-5202; K.S.A. 21-5432; K.S.A. 77-207; 8 U.S.C. § 1324.

                           *          *             *

Dear Ms. Lawson:

As Acting Chief Counsel for the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas
City, you ask three questions involving ordinance O-77-22, the Kansas City, Kansas
Community Identification Act:

1.       Whether providing a Community ID card under the ordinance violates
         K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1)(A).
2.       Whether possessing a Community ID card under the ordinance
         violates K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1)(A).
3.       Whether K.S.A. 77-207(c) applies to a Community ID card issued in
         accordance with the ordinance if law enforcement officers accept the
         card as proof of identity and residency.

K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1) states:

  (a)(1) Human smuggling is intentionally transporting, harboring or
  concealing an individual into or within Kansas when the person:

  (A) Knows, or should have known, that the individual is entering into
  or remaining in the United States illegally;

  (B) benefits financially or receives anything of value; and

   (C) knows, or should have known, that the individual being
   smuggled is likely to be exploited for the financial gain of another.

We conclude that providing a Community ID card does not facially violate K.S.A.
21-5432(a)(1). A Community ID card does not harbor or conceal an illegal alien. In
fact, a Community ID card would reveal the identity of a cardholder to government
officials. A Community ID card does not purport to claim the person is in the
country legally. The ordinance provides an applicant with several methods to prove
identity and residency without revealing that person's immigration status. As such,
the person who provides a Community ID card under the ordinance to the applicant
will most likely lack the required knowing mental state under Subsection (a)(1)(A).
Additionally, it is very unlikely Subsection (a)(1)(C) would ever be met as it requires
a person to know the individual being smuggled is likely to be exploited for the
financial gain of another.

Possessing a Community ID card similarly does not violate K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1).
The statute contemplates a person acting on behalf of another. It identifies the
violator ("the person") acting upon someone else ("the individual"). K.S.A. 21-
5432(a)(1)(A) does not contemplate the illegal alien's own actions he or she takes to
remain in the country. Actions by two people are required to satisfy the statute.

Finally, we conclude that K.S.A. 77-207(c) does apply to the Community ID card
program because the ordinance requires law enforcement officers in the county to
accept the ID cards as proof of identity and residency, which are vital statistics that
must be maintained by local law enforcement agencies. The Unified Government
must keep an accurate data set which identifies each individual by his or her
biological sex at birth. Because a Community ID card is a reflection of the data set,
any designation of sex on the card must accurately reflect the data set and display
the cardholder's biological sex at birth.

                                      Background

In February 2022, the Unified Government adopted an ordinance that authorized
the provision of municipal ID cards to residents and prohibited local law
enforcement agencies from assisting with federal immigration investigations.1
Municipal communications on the matter explicitly stated that the ID program was
"designed to assist undocumented immigrants who cannot obtain state-issued IDs
because they lack key documents."2

Shortly thereafter, the Legislature passed H.B. 2717, which prevents municipalities
from enacting, implementing, or enforcing an ordinance that restricts law

1 Wyandotte Cty./Kan. City, Kan., Ordinance O-19-22 (Feb. 22, 2022).
2 Press Release, Unified Gov't, Commission to Consider Safe & Welcoming City Act (Feb. 4, 2022),

available at https://www.wycokck.org/Engage-With-Us/News-articles/Safe-and-
Welcoming#:~:text=Non%2Ddiscrimination,covers%20a%20Community%20ID%20program.

enforcement or local officials from cooperating with the enforcement of federal
immigration laws.3 H.B. 2717 did not outlaw municipal ID cards. Rather, it
explained that municipal ID cards could "not be used to satisfy any requirement of
state law for proof of identity" and that each such card must "state on its face the
statement 'Not valid for state ID.'"4

As a consequence of H.B. 2717, the Unified Government repealed its prior ID card
ordinance and replaced it with Ordinance O-77-22. That new ordinance removed the
former prohibitions on assisting with federal immigration enforcement,5 but
otherwise retained the core of the previous ID card program; the Unified
Government continues to issue identification cards to those who satisfactorily
establish identity and residence in the county.6 The card must "display the
cardholder's photograph, name, date of birth, address, an expiration date and the
statement 'Not valid for state ID.'"7 The cardholder also has the option of displaying
his or her self-designated gender.8

At present, the only valid use of the county-issued ID seems to be in dealings with
the Unified Government: "[a]ll Unified Government agencies and offices, and all
municipal employees, including law enforcement officers, shall accept such card as
proof of identity and residency."9 But the ordinance goes on to say "[t]he Unified
Government shall seek to expand the benefits associated with the community ID
card, including encouraging eligible persons to apply for the card and promoting the
acceptance of the community ID card by banks and other public and private
institutions."10

3 K.S.A. 12-16,140(a).
4 K.S.A. 12-16,142.
5 The ordinance explicitly says that nothing in the "ordinance will preclude the [police department]

from assisting or participating in judicial warrants and criminal investigations." § 18-164(a). And,
elsewhere, the ordinance says its prohibitions don't apply when something different is "required by
Federal or state statute, regulation, or court decision." § 18-163(a); accord id. §18-168. However, the
ordinance does not require more than this basic compliance, explicitly stating "[i]t is not the mission
of the [police department] to enforce federal immigration law," Wyandotte Cty./Kan. City, Kan. Code
§ 18-164(1)(a), and prohibits city employees from "[r]equir[ing] individuals to provide specific
immigration identification." Id. § 18-163(1)(b)
6 See id. § 18-165(a)(6) (listing approved documents for establishing identity and residence). The

ordinance also includes an open-ended acceptance of "any other documentation that the Program
Administrator deems acceptable" to prove identity and residency. Id. at (a)(6)(1)(b)(xix),
(a)(6)(2)(xiii).
7 Id. § 18-162.
8 Id.
9 Id. § 18-165(b)(1). The only exceptions are "the election commissioner, his or her appointees, and

any election board members or employees." Id.
10 Id. § 18-165(b)(2).

                                           Analysis

1. K.S.A. 21-5432(a)

Your first two questions relate to K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1), specifically whether
providing or possessing a Community ID card necessarily violates subsection
(a)(1)(A) of that statute. We believe the answer is no.

Resolution of your questions requires statutory interpretation. Statutory
interpretation begins with the statutory text, giving words their ordinary and
everyday meanings.11 Only when the statutory language is ambiguous do Kansas
courts turn to canons of construction or legislative history.12

K.S.A. 21-5432 is a relatively new statute (passed in 2023) that established the
crime of "human smuggling."

      Human smuggling is intentionally transporting, harboring or concealing
      an individual into or within Kansas when the person:

              (A) Knows, or should have known, that the individual is
              entering into or remaining in the United States illegally;

              (B) benefits financially or receives anything of value; and

              (C) knows, or should have known, that the individual being
              smuggled is likely to be exploited for the financial gain of
              another.13

The statutory text shows that providing or possessing a Community ID card does
not violate K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1). An individual must be "intentionally" transported,
harbored, or concealed.14 An intentional act requires that it be the "person's
conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result."15 Kansas
statutes do not define transport, harbor, or conceal. Dictionaries are a good source
"to discern the ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning of a word."16 Harbor
means (1) "to serve as, or provide, a place of protection to; shelter or house; conceal

11 Bruce v. Kelly, 316 Kan. 218, 224, 514 P.3d 1007 (2022).
12 State v. Smith, 311 Kan. 109, 113, 456 P.3d 1004 (2020).
13 K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1).
14 K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1).
15 K.S.A. 21-5202(h).
16 State v. Hambright, 318 Kan. 603, 608, 545 P.3d 605 (2024).

or hide" or (2) "to be a dwelling place or habitat."17 Conceal means (1) "to put out of
sight; hide or (2) "to keep from another's knowledge; keep secret."18

The Community ID card program does not harbor or conceal an illegal alien.19
Harboring requires an actor to shelter or house another person. Concealing requires
an act of hiding the individual from others. An individual who is provided with a
Community ID card is not given shelter or hidden from government authorities. In
fact, it actually reveals the identity of a cardholder to officials, as that person would
then possess a legal government ID card, which provided the government with that
person's identifying information. By its own terms, a community ID card may be
issued to any resident "regardless of his or her . . . national origin, alienage or
citizenship status." A person's immigration status is not relevant to the issuance of
a Community ID card, and a Community ID card does not purport to claim the
person is in the country legally. Therefore, a Community ID card does not serve as
proof as to the cardholder's immigration status.

Subsection (a)(1)(A) requires that the person "know" or "should have known" the
individual entered or remained in the United States illegally. A person acts
knowingly with respect to the nature of the person's conduct "when such person is
aware of the nature of such person's conduct."20 A person acts knowingly with
respect to the result of their conduct "when such person is aware that such person's
conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result."21 In this case, the nature and
result of the conduct would be the immigration status of an illegal alien.

The ordinance requires applicants to provide proof of identity and proof of
residence.22 The ordinance provides a long list of acceptable methods to establish a
person's identity, as well as a list of secondary documents if the traditional
documents are unavailable.23 Either list provides an applicant with several options
to establish identity without revealing the applicant's immigration status, such as a
medical insurance ID card and a student ID card to establish an applicant's

17 Webster's New College World Dictionary 660 (5th ed. 2014); see also Lozano v. City of Hazleton,
620 F.3d 170, 223 (3d Cir. 2010), judgment vacated by City of Hazleton, Pa. v. Lozano, 563 U.S. 1030
(2011) (defining harbor in a similar federal statute as "'tending to substantially facilitate an alien's
remaining in the United States illegally and to prevent government authorities form detecting the
alien's lawful presence'"). The Third Circuit has noted that "harboring" "requires some act of
obstruction that reduces the likelihood the government will discover the alien's presence." Lozano,
620 F.3d at 223 (finding it "highly unlikely" that the renting of an apartment to an illegal alien,
without more, would satisfy the definition of harboring).
18 Webster's New World College Dictionary 307 (5th ed. 2014).
19 The ordinance does not suggest any sort of movement that would suggest "transporting" is an

issue here.
20 K.S.A. 21-5202(i).
21 Id.
22 Sec. 18-165(a)(6)(1)(a), (a)(6)(1)(b), (a)(7)(2).
23 Id. at (a)(6)(1)(a), (a)(6)(1)(b).

identity.24 Similarly, proof of residency in Wyandotte County can be established
with many common documents that show the person's address within Wyandotte
County without revealing an applicant's immigration status.25 Beyond that, the
Program Administrator is authorized to create additional methods to permit
homeless individuals to establish residency.26 Given that there are several different
paths of establishing identity and residency, a person who provides a Community
ID card under the ordinance to an applicant will, in most circumstances, likely lack
the required "knowing" mental state in regards to the applicant "entering into or
remaining in the United States illegally," absent direct personal knowledge of the
applicant or from the applicant telling them.27

But, even if subsection (a)(1)(A) is satisfied, this would not mean that that
individual would be guilty of human smuggling by providing a Community ID card
to an illegal alien. K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1) requires three elements be met to constitute
human smuggling.

K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1)(B) requires the person who is transporting, harboring, or
concealing an individual to benefit financially or receive anything of value. While
the ordinance does provide for a fee to obtain the Community ID card, that fee is
paid to the Unified Government, not the person providing the ID card.28 So an
individual would not violate (a)(1)(B) for issuing Community ID cards in the
manner provided by the ordinance.29

But, most especially, it would be difficult for the Community ID card program to
ever satisfy K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1)(C). Subsection (a)(1)(C) requires the person
"knows, or should have known, that the individual being smuggled is likely to be
exploited for the financial gain of another." Absent the unlikely event of someone
informing a government employee that he or she is being exploited for financial
gain, it is hard to imagine how this element could be satisfied by providing a
Community ID card to a qualifying applicant. Thus, even if (a)(1)(A), as you ask, is
somehow satisfied in a specific instance, providing a Community ID card under the

24 Both the proof of identity and proof of residency include an open-ended acceptance of "any other

documentation that the Program Administrator deems acceptable. Id. at (a)(6)(1)(b)(xix),
(a)(6)(2)(xiii).
25 Id. at (a)(6)(2).
26 Id. at (a)(7).
27 K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1)(A).
28 Sec. 18-165(a)(4).
29 It is a different question, however, whether the Unified Government as a whole or the program

administrator could violate Subsection (a)(1)(B), as, by collecting fees, it would be "benefit[ing]
financially or receiv[ing] anything of value" in exchange for its Community ID cards. It is not
necessary to answer this issue here because even if the Unified Government could violate (a)(1)(B) by
issuing Community ID cards to illegal aliens, it still would not violate the other two necessary
elements for the reasons described in the opinion.

ordinance would not rise to the level of human smuggling because (a)(1)(C) would
not be met.

Possessing a Community ID card also would not violate K.S.A. 21-5432(a)(1). As
described above, Community ID cards do not harbor or conceal an illegal alien.
Further, the statute contemplates a person acting on behalf of another. It identifies
the violator ("the person") acting upon someone else ("the individual"). K.S.A. 21-
5432(a)(1)'s plain language does not contemplate the illegal alien's own actions he
or she takes to remain in the country. It plainly requires two people to satisfy the
statute. Thus, possessing a Community ID card does not violate K.S.A. 21-
5432(a)(1) when the possessor knows he or she is in the country illegally.

2. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)

In reviewing your questions, we also recognize that a similar federal statute
exists, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), (iv), and (v)(II). This statute makes it a crime
for any person who:

  (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come
  to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law,
  conceals, harbors, or shields form detection, or attempts to conceal,
  harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any
  building or any means of transportation;

  (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the
  United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such
  coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; [or]

  ....

  (v)(II) aids or abets the commission of the preceding acts.

The Community ID card program does not violate 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).
Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires a person to conceal, harbor, or shield from
protection an illegal alien. As discussed with K.S.A. 21-5432, proving a Community
ID card does not harbor, conceal, or shield from detection an illegal alien. Instead,
the person reveals a cardholder to the authorities. As the Community ID card does
not serve as proof of a person's immigration status, as well as that it can be
obtained without revealing such status, providing or possessing a Community ID
card is not concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection an illegal alien.

However, the Community ID card program does implicate 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). "Encouraging" and "inducing" refer to actions taken to convince
an illegal alien to come to this country or to remain in the country. Although the
Tenth Circuit has yet to opine on the scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), it is

possible that the Community ID card program could be covered. The terms
"encourage" or "induce," which are another way to say solicit and facilitate, require
an intent to bring about a particular unlawful act.30 The Unified Government
clearly intended to facilitate the continued unlawful presence of illegal aliens when
it acted to create the Community ID card program. As noted above, municipal
communications on the matter explicitly stated that the ID program was "designed
to assist undocumented immigrants who cannot obtain state-issued IDs because
they lack key documents."

In addition to the apparent conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), we also
believe that the Community ID card program is likely preempted by federal
immigration law more generally. "The ordinary principles of preemption include the
well-settled proposition that a state law is preempted where it 'stands as an
obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of
Congress.'"31 Congress has enacted a comprehensive scheme governing immigration
into the United States, and 8 U.S.C. § 1324 specifically criminalizes conduct that
facilitates illegal immigration in various ways. Because the purpose of the
Community ID card program is to facilitate illegal immigration, the program stands
as an obstacle of the accomplishment of Congress's objectives.

3. K.S.A. 77-207(c)

Finally, you ask whether K.S.A. 77-207(c) applies to Community ID cards issued
under the ordinance. We conclude that it does.

K.S.A. 77-207(c) states that:

      (c) Any school district, or public school thereof, and any state agency,
      department or office or political subdivision that collects vital statistics
      for the purpose of complying with anti-discrimination laws or for the
      purpose of gathering accurate public health, crime, economic or other
      data shall identify each individual who is part of the collected data set
      as either male or female at birth.

The Unified Government is a "political subdivision" of the State of Kansas.32 The
ordinance requires the Unified Government to contract with a 501(c)(3)
organization to administer the day-to-day operations of the program.33 Though the
Program Administrator is not a government organ, K.S.A. 12-16,139(c) defines a
"municipal identification card: as being "authorized or issued by or on behalf of a

30 United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762, 771 (2023).
31 Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 406 (2012).
32 See K.S.A. 12-345(j) (referring to a consolidated city-county as a political subdivision of the State);

K.S.A. 12-364 (same); K.S.A. 12-16,139(d) ("'Municipality' means a city, county or any taxing
subdivision of the state that employs law enforcement officers.").
33 Sec. 18-165(2).

city or county." Thus, the ordinance promulgated by the Unified Government and
administered by the Program Administrator falls under K.S.A. 77-207(c).

The ordinance requires law enforcement officers in the county to accept Community
ID cards as proof of identity and residency,34 which are vital statistics that must be
maintained by local law enforcement agencies.35 As we have explained in a previous
Attorney General Opinion, the phrase "vital statistics" is frequently used to refer to
data about births, and, at a minimum, the Unified Government and the Community
ID cards collect birth dates.36 Thus, the Unified Government must keep an accurate
data set that conforms with K.S.A. 77-207(c) by identifying each individual by his or
her biological sex at birth.37 K.S.A. 77-207(c) states that the political subdivision
maintaining the data set "shall identify each individual who is part of the collected
data set as either male or female at birth." Because the Community ID card is a
reflection of the data set, any designation of sex on the card must accurately reflect
the data set and display the cardholder's biological sex at birth.38 We interpret this
to mean that subsection (c) requires the political subdivision to identity any person
who appears in the data set by his or her biological sex at birth. Permitting the
display of anything but a cardholder's biological sex at birth would be a violation of
K.S.A. 77-207(c)'s directive. Additionally, the Unified Government must keep and
maintain an applicant's biological sex at birth in their "data set."39

                                        Conclusion

Providing or possessing a Community ID card does not violate K.S.A. 21-5432.
Neither the ordinance nor the Community ID card implicate the crime of human
smuggling. K.S.A. 77-207(c) does apply to the Community ID card, and the statute
must be complied with when issuing any government-issued ID card.

34 Sec. 18-165(b)(1).
35 See K.S.A. 21-2501(a), (b) (requiring law enforcement agencies to maintain records of all offenses

reported or known to have been committed in their jurisdiction); K.S.A. 21-2504 (giving the attorney
general the authority to request these statistics).
36 Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2023-2 at *3.
37 See K.S.A. 77-207(a)(1) (defining sex as an "individual's biological sex, either male or female, at

birth); K.S.A. 77-207(c)
38 Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2023-2 at *3 ("A driver's license is not simply a physical card issued to a

licensed driver; it is a reflection of a data set that is continually maintained and updated to ensure
its accuracy."). See also State of Kansas, ex rel. Kris Kobach v. Harper, et. al., Shawnee County Case
No. 23CV422, Memorandum Decision and Order on Motion for Temporary Injunction (March 11,
2024), appeal filed.
39 K.S.A. 77-207(c).

               Sincerely,


               /s/ Kris W. Kobach

               Kris W. Kobach
               Attorney General

               /s/ Ryan J. Ott

               Ryan J. Ott
               Assistant Solicitor General