Here’s a quick overview:

• “Top Donors” section gives names of donors giving $10,000 or more to candidates.

• Names of US states section with donors giving considerable amounts to Kansas candidates.

• A final section with stats by candidate of what was in their last two campaign finance reports.

Top Donors

Most top donors are from Kansas, but some are not.

The Democratic Party has a few more large-dollar donors than the Republicans in the analyzed reports.

Democratic Party

Republican Party

States having large donors to Kansas

The table shows states having donors giving a total of $10,000 or more in contributions to Kansas statewide candidates before the Aug. 4 primary.

(These tables ignore candidate loans since those numbers skew the results for Kansas.)

Democratic Party

Ethan Corson received more money from Kansas and most other states than his two Democratic opponents.

Curt Skook took more money from Georgia and Oregon.

Democratic nominee Cindy Holscher barely received the most money from Pennsylvania in the table above.

Republican Party

Gubernatorial nominee Ty Masterson received more money from Kansas, Missouri, DC, and Virginia than other other Republicans.

Philip Sarnecki received the most Texas and Georgia money.

Vicki Schmidt received more money than others in New York, Connecticut, Florida, California and Illinois.

Candidate Summaries

This analysis focused on the two campaign finance reports before the Aug 4. primary:

• Jan. 10, 2026 report for all of calendar year 2025.

• July 27, 2026 report for period starting in 2026 through July 23.

Some combined stats from these two reports by candidate are shown below with a breakdown by contribution type (cash, check, credit card, …).

Democratic Party

Republican Party

It’s unclear if all candidates use the contribution types consistently. Some reports seem to have all “check” types but the money seems to have been from E-funds based on payments to campaign conduits.

Median contribution amounts are used here since they are insensitive to the large loan amounts attributed to several of the candidates. (The loans skew the average contribution amounts.)

Technical Notes

The Kansas Secretary of State’s Campaign Finance Viewer is the main source for Kansas campaign finance records that can be analyzed programmatically, but there is scant documentation on exactly what is online.

Select “Contribution” in the first Campaign Viewer menu. On the second menu I selected a date range from 1/1/2025 through 8/15/2026, which was slightly broader than the last two campaign finance reports. Date fields FirstDate and LastDate in each record identify the reporting period consistent with known reports.

The site is very confusing since it allows download of a contribution.xls file (old Excel format), but this is not really an Excel file.

Newer versions of Excel will still open this old file format (very slowly), and show many wrapped lines in many Excel cells that make analysis very difficult.

But the .xls file is really an HTML file that can be parsed into exact fields that are not wrapped. One can “screen scape” the HTML file for better data than Excel provides.

Several statewide candidates had withdrawn from the Aug. primary. Their data was captured but not analyzed.

I had concerns about a number of duplicate records (over 2000), but those records were needed to obtain the reported summary numbers in reports provided by the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission.

The KPDC reports have additional information about “unitemized” contributions, but otherwise comparisons between summary numbers from the data and the reports were mostly the same with three minor exceptions.

Related

Disclosure

Attorney General Kris Kobach appointed me to the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission in March 2024, which has been renamed to the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission.

Analysis and views expressed in Watchdog Lab articles are my own and in no way reflect the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission. I speak for myself as a private citizen on this substack.

On Aug. 4 Kansas voters rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have changed how state supreme court justices are selected. The measure failed 61% to 39%.

Does huge spending by those opposing the amendment compared to those supporting the amendment explain the referendum results?

Summary

Accounting for a constitutional measure is different from other campaign finance.

Only money raised or spent specifically for the referendum must be reported. So, it’s possible to spend more money than was raised.

Current reports show $19 million spent and only $17.1 million raised.

Those opposing the amendment raised about $13.7 million while those supporting it raised only about $3.4 million. Over $4 was raised to oppose the amendment for every $1 raised by those supporting it.

The spending ratio was only $2.8 spent by those opposing for every $1 supporting.

The opposition had a huge 29.5-to-1 advantage with in-kind contributions.

Only 31.9% of the contributions came from Kansas sources, while 34.4% came from New York. The combination of contributions from DC, Missouri and Oklahoma (32.2%) also was greater than Kansas.

Details

Summaries numbers below were extracted from reports online at the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission report page and the Secretary of State’s Campaign Finance Viewer.

Two nonprofit contributions from 2025 were confirmed in IRS 990 tax filings.

Opponents

The dominant opposition player was a progressive group (KUIC) with two very similar names, but registered in Kansas as two business entities:

• Kansans United for Impartial Courts (KnsUIC)

• Kansas United for Impartial Courts (KsUIC)

KnsUIC and KsUIC share the same board of directors:

• Evan Gates (Kansas Values Institute employee)

• Micah Kubic (ACLU-Kansas, Executive Director)

• Emily Wales (Planned Parenthood Great Plains, President and CEO)

Dollar-wise the other groups contributed little compared to KUIC.

Supporters

Large supporters for the amendment were these three organizations:

• Kansans for Democracy

• Kansas Information Network Action

• Your Right to Vote Association

The Watchdog Lab article from July gave details about these and other supporting groups.

More details about opposition contributors

KnsUIC received $1.5 million in contributions mostly in 2025, while KsUIC received $12.2 million in contributions mostly in 2026. The reason for this split by year is unknown.

The following is a summary of a combined contributors reported in KnSUIC’s Jan. 2026 report for 2025 and KsUIC’s Aug. 2026 report for 2026 with a focus on contributions of $100,000 or more. See link for all details.

ACLU: $3.4 million

Four ACLU organizations made contributions, two organizations from NY national office, and two from Kansas.

The “Union” organizations are 501(c)(4) nonprofits while the “Union Foundation” organizations are 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofits.

Planned Parenthood: $2.2 million

“Action Fund” and “Great Plains Votes” are 501(c)(4) organizations, while “Great Plains” is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.

Lawyers giving $100,000: $1.3 million

The Kansas Trial Lawyers Association is a 501(c)(6) association nonprofit.

Nicholas Rowley is the founder of Trial Lawyers for Justice.

The other entries are from law firms.

Three one-million dollar donors: $3 million

Michael Bloomberg has an estimated worth of $100 billion. Bloomberg is an entrepreneur and three-time mayor of New York City.

A $1 million contribution from Tulsa was changed to being from Samson Energy Company LLC instead of from the individual Lynn Shusterman. Stacy Shusterman is the chair of the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies and chair of Samson Energy.

Nonprofits: $2.4 million

The Fairness Project: $950,000

Influence Watch says The Fairness Project is a group that supports left-of-center ballot measures nationwide, and whose major funders have included the SEIU United Healthcare Workers West labor union, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, and the Hopewell Fund.

The progressive Sixteen Thirty Fund once described one of their focus areas: “The Fairness Project helps put progressive issues on the ballot to expand health care and win social, racial, and economic justice.”

Kansas Values Institute: $716,000

See Watchdog Lab report from March 2024: Nonprofit Kansas Values Institute spent $23 million to help Gov. Laura Kelly and other candidates in 2022. KVI raised and spent more in 2022 than in the previous 11 years combined.

George Soros’ nonprofit: $400,000

From 2016 to 2024 George Soros’ nonprofits gave $7.9 billion to 6,838 grant recipients in 20,575 grants.

Health Forward Foundation: $175,000

In recent years Health Forward spent $1.8 million on a Kansas “Integrated Voter Engagement” project led by the Kansas Health Foundation.

Health Forward also spent $425,000 for The Voter Network’s “peer pressure with a purpose” project to shepherd progressive voters to the polls.

Health Forward spent $9700 directly on independent expenditures against the ballot measure in addition to the $175,000 they sent to KUIC.

Global Impact Social Welfare Fund: $150,000

Planned Parenthood Great Plains gave sister organization, Global Impact, a $750,000 grant in their 2025 fiscal year.

Global Impact Social Welfare Fund has contributed to Kansas Values Institute (2023) and also to the group Local Jobs and Economic Development Fund, which gave JoCo Chair Mike Kelly $85,000 for his Amberwave PAC in 2025.

Final accounting

Other KUIC contributors gave less than $100,000.

While the numbers reported here are likely close to final amounts, state law requires final Receipts and Expenditure reports for 2026 be filed by Feb. 15, 2027.

Related

US Senator Roger Marshall files a yearly financial disclosure report, and candidates running for the office, such as Rev. Adam Hamilton, file similar reports with the US Senate Select Committee on Ethics.

Years ago these reports were only available at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, but in recent years they are now online.

The following are excerpts, or summaries, from the actual reports. PDF versions of the reports can be downloaded at the bottom of the article for all details.

Here are the 10 categories in US Senate Financial Disclosures:

1. Honoraria

2. Earned and Non-Investment Income

3. Assets

4. Periodic Transaction Report Summary

5. Gifts

6. Travel

7. Liabilities

8. Positions

9. Agreements

10. Compensation

Part 1. Honoraria

Part 2. Earned and Non-Investment Income

Note: instructions for filling out these forms say: “You are not required to report any income from the U.S. Government, including, but not limited to, your Senate salary, military pay from military reserve duty, social security income, and federal retirement income.”

So, Sen. Marshall was following the instructions in not including this information on his form.

This senate site says US Senate salaries have been $174,000 per year since 2009.

This information is not needed for comparisons among US Senators, but a comparison to a candidate should mention the US Senate salary, so it was added here.

Part 3. Assets

Part 4. Periodic Transaction Report Summary

Parts 5 and 6. Gifts and Travel

Part 7. Liabilities

Part 8. Positions

Notes:

• The Church of the Resurrection in Leawood is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, but as a church, it does not file IRS 990 nonprofit tax reports.

• In 2024 Hamilton was one of 16 board members of the American Public Square 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Part 9. Agreements

Part 10. Compensation

Report PDFs

Efd Annual Report For 2026 Hamilton, Adam

1.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Efd Annual Report For 2025 Marshall, Roger W

481KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Notes

Find any US Senate Financial Disclosure report online.

Start at the US Senate Public Disclosure page. Select the tab for “Financial Disclosure.” It’s not very obvious, but select the light blue link: Search the Senate Public Financial Disclosure Database. You must check the “I understand” agreement about obtaining and using the reports.

Look for:

• Adam Hamilton, Candidate, Kansas

• Roger Marshall, Senator, Kansas

For details, there are some online Financial Disclosure Instructions for Calendar Year 2025.

On Friday morning the Johnson County the Board of County Commissioners, serving as the Board of Canvassers, considered recommendations from Election Commissioner, Connie Schmidt, about how to handle nearly 3100 provisional ballots.

Schmidt showed the Board of Canvassers a dashboard with highlights of the election.

In particular, Schmidt pointed out the bar charts showing the percentages by voting method (mail, early in-person, election day) have changed little in the 2022, 2024, and 2026 primary elections.

This dashboard gave a count of 473 UOCAVA mail voters, which was designed for overseas military voters, but in recent years has been used more by US citizens living overseas than the military. In the past, Kansas UOCAVA information has only been available in EAC EAVS reports.

Schmidt pointed out that 77.8% of the mail ballots were returned in drop boxes, with only 22.2% returned by the post office.

Schmidt’s recommendations were broken into three broad categories.

Recommended to Count

Approved with a 7-0 vote by the Board of Canvassers.

The reasons for counting categories of ballots are based on various Kansas statutes cited in the table.

The “should be perfect” category identified some voters, who after research by the election office, should have been able to cast a ballot but could not for various technicalities.

One commissioner asked how the “Take Home/Sick & Disabled ballots” worked. Schmidt explained that a person, usually a relative, could obtain such a ballot after completion of a necessary form.

Recommended to Partially Count

Approved with a 7-0 vote by the Board of Canvassers.

There were 561 voters who showed up and wanted a party ballot different than their registration. Since a party change is not allowed in closed primaries, only the constitutional amendment and county commission chair items were counted.

Recommended Not Be Counted

Approved with a 7-0 vote by the Board of Canvassers.

Johnson County avoids any confrontation at the polls by allowing anyone to vote provisionally, even when it’s fairly obvious the vote will not count.

So, 417 people who were not registered cast ballots that did not count, but they are now registered for the November election.

Court-mandated grace period

A Kansas court ruling required counting ballots during a three-day grace period after the election, even though a new state law required ballots would only be counted if returned by election day.

Schmidt said 308 ballots were counted after election day, with 56 of those being UOCAVA ballots.

There were 31 ballots received but not counted during the court-mandated grace period, with 9 having no post mark, and 22 post marked after election day.

What’s Next?

The JoCo Board of Canvassers recessed their Friday meeting until 9 AM Monday morning, to give the election office time to take action on the three categories of provisional ballots. Today’s “unofficial final results” will become the “final certified results” on Monday.

After county canvassing, a State Board of Canvassers meets in Topeka to certify the state-wide election results. That meeting should happen no later than Sept. 1, but no date as been announced.

Related

On his Linked-In page, JoCo Deputy Election Commissioner, Zachary Hunt, has a dashboard for the statewide early voting, with details by county. The Secretary of State should embrace this dashboard!

This article is about the amounts of political money raised and spent as reported in recent Kansas campaign finance filings in these categories:

• Kansas PAC reports of contributions and expenditures: $4.4 million raised, $4.5 million spent, $6.5 million cash on hand. Each PAC is assigned a ranking for money raised, spend and cash on hand.

• Verified Statements from out-of-state PACs: $1.4 million flowing into Kansas from other states.

• Independent Expenditure reports: $5.4 million.

Links to the recent filings are available in the summary tables below.

Connections among groups and money flows will be be the focus of future articles.

In past years I have mostly focused on Kansas PAC reports, but there is also significant political money reported via out-of-state Verified Statements, and reports of independent expenditures.

Kansas PACs

Overall: 144 Kansas PACs, $4.4 million raised, $4.5 million spent, $6.5 million cash on hand.

Where to find original reports

A convenient source for current Kansas PAC information is the online page at the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission.

Often, more up-to-date information can be found with the Campaign Finance Viewer at the Secretary of State’s website. Select “PAC/Party Political Committee,” then “Political Action Committee” type, and finally “Receipts and Expenditures” filing type.

Kansas PAC Rankings

Notes:

• Raised, Spent, Cash on Hand amounts are ranked separately. Overall rank is the product of these separate rankings.

• Table above is sorted in ascending order by Final PAC rank.

• Click on Name link to see July 27 filing.

Comments

#1 Take Back Kansas (based in Massachusetts). Established to support Ty Masterson for Governor. There’s a related nonprofit that we may learn more about in a year or two.

#2 Kansas Chamber PAC. Focuses on pro-business, pro-job growth, limited-government, so mostly Republican leaning.

#3 Kansas Realtors PAC. Focuses on real estate industry priorities. Supports both left and right. (getting the exact breakdown from a PDF report is a huge amount of work for one PAC).

#4 Defend Kansas PAC. Something doesn’t make sense about the money flowing into and out of this PAC, since it’s mostly out-of-state. Needs more research. On my “watch” list.

#5 Kansas Contractors Association PAC. Industry PAC that channels contributions from heavy construction stakeholders to support pro-infrastructure candidates.

#6 Kansas Comeback PAC (based in Alabama). PAC has been linked to ads supporting Philip Sarnecki and opposing Ty Masterson for Kansas Governor.

#7 Kansas Optometric PAC. Funded mainly by optometrists to influence state legislation on the profession.

#8 Kansas Association of Nurse Anesthetists CRNA PAC. Supports policymakers who back CRNA (Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist) practice, independent anesthesia care and patient access.

#9 The Right Future for Kansas PAC. Odd mixture of “right future” contributors: Unions, Sports Betting Alliance, Heavy Constructors Association. In 2024 helped Kyler Sweely over Jason Probst in House District 102 race.

#10 Kansas Livestock Association PAC. Represents a trade group of more than 5600 livestock producers in Kansas.

“Last Minute” reports

After the report closing date of July 23, PACs are required to report “last minute” contributions or expenditures before the election.

Here are PACs with significant “last minute” amounts (> $1000):

• Kansas Chamber PAC: Spent $18,600 in support of six house candidates

• Kansas Comeback PAC: Received $138,2770 ($100,000 from America Next, Alexandria, VA); Spent $143,974 (radio/TV for Ty Masterson)

• Kansas Realtors PAC: Spent $14,508 on independent expenditures (no details)

• Medical Society of Sedgwick County (SedgPAC): Raised $15,700 from physicians

• Middle of the Road PAC: Received $250,000 from JB Pritzker, Chicago (billionaire Illinois Governor). Received $250,000 from Pritzker in 2024.

• Prairie Fire PAC, Received $7500 from The Onyx Collection

• Take Back Kansas Action (Massachusetts): Received $60,000 ($50,000 from American Healthcare Accountability Alliance, Wichita); Spent $100,000 on digital advertising supporting Ty Masterson

Out-of-State-PACs: Verified Statements

Overall: 66 out-of-state organizations, 1.4 million flowing into Kansas.

Out-of-state PACs that collect or spend money in Kansas are required to file “verified statement” with details of money flowing from or to Kansas.

Where to find original reports

The only source of this information is to View Campaign Finance Reports on the Secretary of State’s site. Select Select “PAC/Party Political Committee,” then “Political Action Committee” type of committee, and finally “Verified Statement” filing type. These reports are PDFs that can be downloaded.

These reports are awkward to process since often the summary page is blank with details in the attachments, and often there are pages of details with no totals. It’s unclear what, if any, scrutiny these reports receive by Kansas officials.

Notes:

• Sorted in descending order by amounts sent to Kansas.

• Click on Name link to see original Verified Statement filing.

• “n pages” in the From Kansas column indicates the report showed no total but gave several pages of details.

Independent Expenditures

Overall: 18 organizations reporting Independent Expenditures totaling $5.4 million.

Some organizations choose to make independent expenditures without setting up a separate PAC, and some individuals make political expenditures that exceed spending thresholds set by law. These independent expenditures are reported in separate filings.

Where to find original reports

These reports are labeled “By a Person Other Than a Candidate or Committee” on the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission’s “View Submitted Forms & Reports” page, but the link is to an “Independent Expenditures” page, which is a better name.

Often, more up-to-date information can be found with the Campaign Finance Viewer at the Secretary of State’s website. Select “Individual Entity” and Filing Type “Individual Expenditures.” The Secretary of State needs a separate selection for individual expenditures for “Constitutional Ballot Question,” since now there is a mix of what is being displayed. (But the filing for AFC Victory Fund was processed by the Disclosure Commission and is not the Secretary of State’s site.)Note: Click on link in Name to see actual filing.

Notes:

• Sorted alphabetically by Name.

• Click on Name link to see original independent expenditure filing.

Related

Posting on X about new Free State Conservative Fund with Washington, DC address.

This article has been updated with links to download all requested reports (except PV mayoral candidate Cole Robinson’s report has not yet been filed).

From late afternoon Thursday:

JoCo Chair Mike Kelly’s report shows staggering numbers:

Updated Aug 1 with comments from Peggy A. Trent, JoCo Chief Counsel & Director of Legal Department.

July 31, 9:25 AM: Received requested JoCo/PV campaign finance reports from JoCo Election Office about 30 minutes ago. These reports can be downloaded using links below.

While busy today studying recent state Political Action Commission reports, I received a phone call asking why certain Johnson County campaign finance reports were not online.

I said I would take a look.

Campaign Finance Records

I visited the Johnson County Election web site, selected Candidates and Elected Officials, and then Campaign Finance Reports.

And sure enough, there was a new notice since the last time I visited a few months ago.

Campaign finance reports accessed using this tool are archived as of April 22, 2026 and are no longer updated. For new campaign finance reports filed after that date, please contact the Election Office at ELC-Candidates@jocogov.org.

Old reports could still be viewed online, but per the notice, an email request was the only way to request the new county commission and Prairie Village mayoral reports that should have been filed earlier this week.

The Election Office was quick to give me this reply by email:

Campaign finance documents posted on the JocoElection website were archived as of April 22, 2026, as part of the County’s ongoing ADA remediation efforts.

As you know, campaign finance reports are submitted to our office as paper documents. Because these filings are provided to us in a format that cannot be easily remediated, old documents were moved to an archived section of the website for the public to access, but because any newly created documents would not meet accessibility standards, new scanned copies are no longer posted on the website.

Copies of any campaign finance paperwork are available free of charge upon request. To request copies of campaign finance documents, please contact ELC-Candidates@jocogov.org.

On Saturday, Aug. 1 JoCo Chief Counsel & Director of Legal Department sent these comments by email.

We understand your concern that new campaign finance reports are no longer readily available on the Johnson County Election Office. This decision was not made lightly, and I would like to explain the County’s justification for this change.

In 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a new final rule under the Americans with Disabilities Act prescribing standards for state and local governments to make web content and mobile apps more accessible to persons with disabilities. That rule was originally scheduled to take effect on April 24, 2026. In the final days leading up to that date, the DOJ extended the deadline by one year to April 26, 2027.

Campaign finance filings present challenges for accessibility standards because many are handwritten or otherwise submitted in formats that do not conform to the new ADA requirements. Because the state of Kansas does not mandate electronic filing for these documents, Johnson County is left with a trove of documents that do not conform to the new ADA requirements. Although these filings were produced and submitted by a candidate, Johnson County is responsible for the ADA accessibility of any content posted on our website, including these campaign finance filings.

Leading up to the original April 24, 2026, deadline, Johnson County implemented a change to the web application that displays campaign finance filings to comply with the new ADA requirements. Pre-existing campaign finance filings already posted on the Johnson County website remain available as archived content. The Johnson County Election Office continues to make new campaign finance filings available to the public by providing copies upon request. The campaign finance section of the Election Office website includes a conspicuous statement notifying the public of how to request and obtain these filings. Although campaign finance filings are public records and subject to disclosure under Kansas law, there is no legal requirement that they be published on the Johnson County website.

We cannot speak to the efforts of state agencies to comply with the new ADA requirements. Upon a brief review by our legal staff of some campaign finance filings on state websites, they found numerous PDF documents that did not appear to comply with the new ADA requirements. Due to the extended deadline, they are not currently required to comply, but this finding illustrates the challenge presented by campaign finance filings.

Johnson County remains committed to providing web content that is accessible to the widest possible audience, regardless of technology or ability, and to complying with applicable legal requirements. The County continues to evaluate the availability and feasibility of technology options to satisfy ADA standards for all County web content and mobile apps, including campaign finance filings.

Peggy A. Trent
Chief Counsel & Director of Legal Department
Johnson County Legal Department

I’m not sure I understand either reply.

Because the County wants to improve access for a few based on “ADA remediation efforts,” no one can now view any reports online?

Why would any system be designed and implemented with a break like this? Why not get a new system online, with both old and new system running smoothly, and then announce the transition?

In the past anyone could review these reports anonymously online, but now an email request for a particular campaign finance report becomes an open record that anyone can request via Kansas Open Records Act. Who wants that?

Requested Reports

I have requested the following recent campaign reports per the instructions in the email and online:

County Commission

Chair

• Karen Crnkovich

• Mike Kelly

• Gene Senesac

Karen Crnkovich Receipts And Expenditures

845KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Gene Senesac Receipts And Expenditures

1.06MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Mike Kelly Receipts And Expenditures

4.64MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

District 1

• Becky Fast

• Ben Hobert

Becky Fast Receipts And Expenditures

1.92MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Ben Hobert Receipts And Expenditures

1.12MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

District 4

• Teresa Erb

Teresa Erb Receipts And Expenditures

556KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

District 5

• Greg Mitchell

• Michael L. Ashcraft

Michael Ashcraft Receipts And Expenditures

797KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Greg Mitchell Receipts And Expenditures

1.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Prairie Village Mayor

• Cole Robinson

• Inga Selders

JoCo Election office: We have not yet received the Receipts and Expenditures report from Cole Robinson’s mayoral campaign.

Inga Selders Receipts And Expenditures

909KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Big Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) problem in getting late reports like Robinson’s. Technically, a report must exist before a KORA request can be submitted and honored. Online, immediate access is far better.

One could have reviewed all of these reports online in the time it took to write this article.

Digital transparency?

While ADA remediation may help some people access these reports, analysis of most government data, including campaign finance reports, is tedious and not unlike paper analysis 25 years ago. We have “digital paper” now, not data that can be directly analyzed.

Will these new changes promote “digital transparency” and the ability to work with data directly, without a tedious conversion process?

Making progress

To be fair, Johnson County is making a lot of progress. Or was.

This is what the “online” campaign finance library looked like in Jan. 2009.

Related

Higher Ed Prepares for New Era of Accessibility, Inside Higher Ed, Jan. 21, 2026.

Looming federal regulations update the ADA to make web content and mobile apps more accessible to people, including college students, with disabilities. But universities are scrambling to comply by the April deadline.

[Summary plot updated with July 31 data]

This first summary plot below shows the three aspects of Advance voter data being released every day by the Secretary of State’s office.

• The “Sent” line shows a huge spike in first-day mail ballots sent, because of the large permanent medical disability group. But after the first day, there’s only a steady pace of additional ballots being sent.

• The “Return” line had a very slow start after mail ballots were sent on July 15, but the pace of returns is picking up. The grey dashed “Unreturned” line shows how many mail ballots are still outstanding. If all mail ballots are returned, the “Return” line would approach the “Sent”, and the “Unreturned” line would go to zero.

• The “In-Person” line shows a steady increase in on-site ballots cast at election offices across the state.

Daily data for July 31

Republicans have led in InPerson voting the last four days and now lead InPerson voting.

Cumulative data for July 31

Details

Data breakouts for the Sent-Return-InPerson lines from July 28 are shown below, with comparison plots from August 2024

Mail Ballots Sent

This plot shows the cumulative number of mail ballots sent out by day with a breakdown by political party, and a separate breakdown by gender.

This Aug. 2026 plot shows females are receiving more mail ballots for all dates compared to male voters, and likewise, Democrats are receiving more mail ballots across all dates compared to Republicans.

The chart from Aug. 2024 (below) shows the Democrats and Republicans were neck-and neck two years ago, so Democrats appear to have picked up a mail ballot advantage this year.

July 28, 2026 (above) corresponds roughly to July 30, 2024 (below): three days of the first week of advance voting, followed by five days the second week, with two days from a third week. These Aug. 2026 vs Aug 2024 comparisons are roughly for day 10 of advance voting.

So, Aug. 2026 shows slightly more mailed ballots (56,094 up to 61,749) with Democrats increasing from 27,474 to 28,824 while Republicans dropped from 27,730 to 25,507.

There’s a pronounced increase in Unaffiliated voters in Aug. 2026 (7,194) compared to Aug. 2024 (869), but that’s likely due to the constitutional amendment that everyone can vote on.

“Sent” Chart Comparison to Aug 2024

Based on Aug. 2024 data, “sent” ballots in 2026 should start leveling off as election day approaches and returns become more unlikely.

It’s unclear how the two parties were nearly the same in “sent” ballots for the Aug. 2024 primary during all the days of Advance voting.

Mail Ballots Returned

Returned ballots will start arriving at election offices in very large numbers soon.

Democrats have a slight edge in returned ballots compared to Republicans, but that edge is smaller in the returned ballots than the sent ballots.

July 28, 2026 (above) corresponds roughly to July 30, 2024 (below):

There have been roughly 2200 additional ballots returned so far for the Aug. 2026 election (17,140 up to 19,308) compared to a similar time in Aug. 2024

From Aug. 2024 to Aug. 2026 Democrats increased their numbers by about 800 while Republicans are down about 400 returned ballots. In Aug. 2024, Republicans had a lead at this point.

“Return” Chart Comparison to Aug 2024

Republicans had a lead during Aug. 2024, but not this year.

Ballots Cast In-Person

Not all Kansas counties are offering in-person advance voting yet. The table below shows 29 counties started in-person voting on July 16, and that number has grown to 81 of the 105 Kansas counties.

The current Aug. 2026 chart shows Democrats have a slight edge in in-person voting in 2026.

July 28, 2026 (above) corresponds roughly to July 30, 2024 (below):

In person voting in Kansas is off the charts in Aug. 2026 compared to Aug. 2024. The post-election data from Aug. 9, 2024 shows slightly fewer than 40,000 voted in-person in that primary.

But the first 9 days of in-person voting (it was not offered the first day ballots were mailed) has greatly exceeded the whole advance period from Aug. 2024!

Democrats increased from 8,132 in-person votes in at this point in the Aug 2026 election, compared to 26,225 this year. Republicans are up too (from 8,930 to 25,038), but not as much as the Democrats.

“In Person” Chart Comparison to Aug 2024

The July 29, 2024 data seems to be messed up, and was left out in the plot below until it can be studied. This is an enigma from 2024.

But the change from July 26, 2024 to July 30, 2024 does not look quite right in the Republican data with a near flat line compared to Democrats. Why were there larger increases before and after this near flat line? I have all the files and records of all the voters in the advance data files, so this is something to study when time permits.

Related

Reports filed last week with the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission provide clues about those supporting or opposing a change in how Kansas Supreme Court justices are chosen.

This appears to be a bit of a proxy cultural war in Kansas between dark money/nonprofits on the left and right, mostly from out-of-state.

Here is a summary table from all the reports , and some additional entries for known groups without filings:

Note

Accounting is a bit unusual, since one must only report contributions that were explicitly earmarked for the amendment. If a person/committee had their own money then only expenditures are reported. So, contributions and expenditures generally do not match.

Details are broken into separate articles about those supporting or opposing the referendum:

Details on organizations supporting “yes” vote

Details on organizations supporting “no” vote

Disclosure

Attorney General Kris Kobach appointed me to the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission in March 2024, which was renamed the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission last year.

Analysis and views expressed in Watchdog Lab articles are my own and in no way reflect the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission. I speak for myself as a private citizen on this substack.

Related

Reports filed last week with the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission provide clues about those opposing a change in how Kansas Supreme Court justices are chosen.

A vote “no” on the Kansas constitutional amendment referendum on Aug. 4 would keep the existing system in place where Kansas is alone among all states in giving attorneys and the bar association much of the selection power of state supreme court justices.

Summary of groups opposing election of Supreme Court justices

Notes

Accounting is a bit unusual, since one must only report contributions that were explicitly earmarked for the amendment. If a person/committee had their own money then only expenditures are reported. So, contributions and expenditures generally do not match.

• KsUIC’s Schedule A from July 2026 shows $7,615,289 in itemized contributions, but the sum of 902 detail records shows a sum of $8,827,674, which combined with the $20,082 in unitemized contributions, is a total of $8,847,756, instead of $7,635,371. So, the total contributions from Feb. and July is $204,738 + $8,847,756 = $9,052,494.

• KnsUIC’s In-kind Contributions in Feb 2026 report shows details in Schedule B ($15,973) that are higher than the total given on the summary page ($10,437).

• KsUIC’s Contributions in Feb 2026 report shows higher number on summary page ($204,738) than Schedule A total ($204,535).

One progressive group with two names

Credit goes to Brad Cooper and the Sunflower State Journal for identifying these two separate Kansas corporations with similar but different names. I initially thought they were accidental misspellings.

• Kansas United for Impartial Courts (KsUIC)

• Kansans United for Impartial Courts (KnsUIC)

KnsUIC was used mostly for the initial seed funding, will big dollars later flowing through KsUIC.

Besides very similar names, these two organizations share the same address and board of directors:

• Micah Kubic (Executive Director of ACLU of Kansas),

• Emily Wales (President/CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains), and

• Evan Gates (Executive Director of Kansas Values Institute).

I combined the contribution data from reports from KnsUIC and KsUIC: 928 records, 644 unique contributors, that totaled $10.6 million. Address information in the contribution records allows breakdowns by state and city.

Fifty legal organizations contributed nearly $3 million to Kansas United for Impartial Courts. See list at bottom of article.

Stats from combined KnsUIC and KsUIC reports

By Contributor

By State

Only 41% of combined contributions to KsUIC and KnsUIC were from Kansas.

By City

Issue Advocacy?

Two groups are marked “Oppose?” above since they seem to be claiming they spent money only on “issue advocacy” and not “express advocacy” about the amendment and may be exempt for Kansas reporting.

Law KSA 25-4180 requires reports (annual, pre-election preliminary, and post-election supplemental, plus foreign-national certifications) from every person who engages in any activity promoting or opposing the adoption or repeal of any provision of the Kansas constitution and who accepts moneys or property for the purpose of engaging in such activity. ksrevisor.gov

It’s not clear whether Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Kansas Fair Court Fund are exempt from this law. According to Grok AI: The trigger language is deliberately broad (“any activity promoting or opposing”). It is not limited to the candidate-style “express advocacy” magic words defined in KSA 25-4143.

Instead of filing reports before the election these nonprofits appear to want to wait a year or more to give vague information about their spending in an IRS 990 tax filing.

Others Opposing

Flint Hills Coalition for Fair Courts

Grassroots efforts in the Manhattan area raised about $6700 and spent about $5100. All Kansas donors.

Johnson County Democratic Central Committee

JoCo Democrats reporting raising $19,000 for this effort, but spent other funds with a final total of over $80,000. Over half of the money raised was with unitemized contributions.

Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice Inc.

It’s unclear how many of the 34 separate expenditures filings totaling ($17,511) by Kansas Appleseed are included in their July 20 report of expenditures.

For now, only the amount $23,695 from their July report is used in the summary table above.

Kansas Appleseed hosted a number of events across the state in opposition to the amendment.

Kansas Fair Court Fund

No reports for Kansas Fair Court Fund have been found, but KsUIC’s July 2026 report showed a contribution from Kansas Fair Court Fund of $115,921.36, which is shown in the table above.

There is evidence the Kansas Fair Court Fund is run by Kansas Values Institute.

The Kansas Fair Court Fund has been running many TV ads to keep our Supreme Court "fair and impartial" but can't be bothered to comply with reporting laws.

Neither the Kansas Secretary of State’s site nor the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission site shows any related filings for Kansas Fair Court Fund at this time.

Unlike other entries, the link on line 11 (on July 26) in the table above shows a National Association of Broadcasters “agreement form” with details not in the other links.

The phone number on the NAB form matches the phone number for Kansas Values Institute in their IRS 990 filing, which strongly implies that Kansas Fair Courts and Kansas Values Institute may be the same entity.

Gates’ phone number on the NAB form matches the phone number on the IRS 990 form filed by Kansas Values Institute.

The same 990 shows Gates' salary with KVI is $131,000. Is that the pay needed to ignore campaign reporting laws?

Why are nonprofits allowed to ignore laws about campaign finance in the Kansas constitutional amendment issue on the Aug 4 ballot?

Kansas Women Attorneys for Freedom, Inc.

Former KS Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier gave $1000 to the Kansas Women Attorneys for Freedom organization.

This group gave $25,000 to KsUIC even though its contributions totaled just under $10,000.

Law firms, attorneys, bar associations

Recent filings show fifty legal organizations contributed nearly $3 million to Kansas United for Impartial Courts.

Related

Reports filed last week with the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission provide clues about those supporting a change in how Kansas Supreme Court justices are chosen.

A vote “yes” on the Kansas constitutional amendment referendum on Aug. 4 would change the method to let voters decide.

Summary of groups supporting election of Supreme Court justices

Notes

Accounting is a bit unusual, since one must only report contributions that were explicitly earmarked for the amendment. If a person/committee had their own money then only expenditures are reported. So, contributions and expenditures generally do not match.

Each of three nonprofit groups raised and spent over $700K to support the election of judges. These three groups largely received funding via unknown “dark money” nonprofits from Tennessee, Virginia and Kansas.

American for Prosperity

Americans for Prosperity always self-funds but reported the second largest expenditures with over $900K.

In early 2025 AFP-KS started a “Take Back the Bench” campaign to advocate for the amendment to be put up to a vote.

In 2026 AFP-KS has involved door-knocking and canvassing across the state as well as digital and social media ads to support passage of the amendment.

Americans for Prosperity is based in Virginia but has a local AFP-KS chapter with people here in Kansas.

AFP’s largest donors are Kansas-based Koch Industries and Koch-funded Stand Together organizations.

Kansans for Democracy

Kansans for Democracy was incorporated in Kansas in Aug. 2025 by Brandon Smith using an address in Hutchinson. No web site can be found for this organization.

Smith is a partner in a Tennessee law firm but worked in the past for Gov. Sam Brownback and the Shawnee County DA’s office.

The $1.7 million in contributions to Kansans for Democracy came from a non-profit, First Principles Action, based in Nashville. So far, $1.2 million has been spent on media production and placement.

According to their web page, First Principles is a “nationwide grassroots movement of people who share a love of American democracy and concern for the direction of our existing conservative leadership.”

First Principles Action registered in Tennessee as a mutual benefit corporation in Nov. 2024. No registration with the IRS can be found at this time for this nonprofit.

Some of the donors to this nonprofit might be discoverable in a year or two if this is an IRS nonprofit.

Kansas Information Network Action, Inc.

Attorney Josh Ney incorporated the Kansas Information Network in July 2025, as well as a separate Kansas Information Network Action organization.

Kansas Information Action Network Action has registered with the IRS as a nonprofit with EIN 39-3495208, but no other information is available.

Kansas Information Network is also likely a nonprofit, but no IRS information can be found about it at this time.

Their web site says their mission is “to keep citizens informed and engaged on critical issues affecting our state,” but their current focus is the Kansas Constitutional Ament Vote in August.

In its recent report Kansas Information Network Action reported nearly $20,000 in donations from 13 individuals, with one donation of $15,000.

But five payments totaling $733,000 are from Kansas Information Network, which have been used for $703,000 worth of TV and digital ads.

So, Kansas Information Network is likely a 501(c)(3) organization giving money to its sister 501(c)(4) Kansas Information Network Action. IRS rules do not require these organizations to disclose donors.

Like First Principles Action above, some of the donors to either of these Kansas Information Network nonprofits might be discoverable in a year or two through IRS 990 filings by donor organizations.

Your Right to Vote Association

Kansas business records show Your Right to Vote Association was incorporated in Kansas on June 2 by Christie Kreigshauser (VP of Political Affairs for the Kansas Chamber of Commerce), Elizabeth Patton (State Director of Americans for Prosperity - Kansas), and Hannah Kagay (small business owner).

Your Right to Vote received one $10Kcontribution from Justin Hill in Lawrence, and a $709Kdonation from Impact Mission Fund from Richmond, VA. About $702K was spent on TV and digital media.

Hill from Lawrence Paper Company is on the Kansas Chamber’s Board of Directors.

Little is known about Impact Mission Fund, except that it was incorporated in Virginia in Oct. 2025. No IRS nonprofit records can be found for it.

Others

Combined, pro-family group, Kansas Family Voice, and pro-life group, Kansans for Life PAC, spent about $90,000 supporting the amendment, which was dwarfed by the pro-abort spending by various Planned Parenthood groups.

Former congressman Tim Huelskamp is the chair of the Do Right PAC, which promotes conservative principles. Do Right PAC spent nearly $40K to support the referendum through mailings with one supporter, J. Vess from Wichita, giving $25K.

Attorney General Kris Kobach’s Prairie Fire PAC sent flyers to “vote yes.” The Prairie Fire PAC reported in January receiving $50K in funding from First Principles in Nashville, TN — the same group funding Kansans for Democracy.

Related

The following are excerpts from articles about the Supreme Court and the Nominating Commission from about 20 years ago showing both bodies have been majority Democrats.

Supreme Court

March 2005: Activist court?

In March 2005 Kansas had an electorate of 27% Democrats and 46% Republicans, yet a majority of the Supreme Court justices were Democrats?

At that time both Republican Chief Justice Kay McFarland and Republican Attorney General Phill Kline commented about a reversal of a court decision made three years earlier largely only due to a change in makeup of the court pushed by Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in her first term.

Chief Justice McFarland:

“While fidelity to the doctrine of stare decisis is not an ‘inexorable command,’ we should be highly skeptical of reversing an earlier decision where nothing has changed except the composition of the court."

AG Phill Kline

“We need certainty in court decisions, and this reversal of a previous decision only three years earlier -- simply because the names and faces have changed on the court -- has caused serious concerns.”

“The KS Supreme Court’s willingness to ignore previously settled law and take an activist role foreshadowed the school finance case in which the justices have all but taken over the state’s school system.”

July 2005: Now 5 Democrats, 2 Republicans

A recent Meadowlark report commented on the political breakdown of the Kansas Supreme Court in March before the death of Justice Robert Gernon. How did this breakdown change with today’s addition to the court?

Governor Sebelius was given a list of three candidates from which to choose the new Supreme Court justice. The “contest” was likely between Democrat Martha Coffman (age 54) and Democrat Eric Rosen (age 52). The other candidate, Robert Fairchild (age 57), a political contributor to Dick Bond and Carla Stovall, was likely still “too Republican” for Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius. In the end, Sebelius chose Rosen, likely because he was about two years younger than Coffman (and thus her “touch” on the Supreme Court could last two years long -- due to mandatory retirement rules). Could there be another reason? Could this appointment be some sort of pay back?

The Kansas Governor elected in 2006 (Sebelius) will make the appointments to replace these two justices. Party politics is quite important in the appointment of judges, and Sebelius’ touch will be on Kansas Supreme Court for years to come.

The Court may become quite controversial next year as a huge court-ordered school funding increase is debated by the Kansas Legislature.

Democrat Eric Rosen is still on the Kansas Supreme Court at age 73, and must retire at age 75 (or finish a term once reaching that age). [A law passed in 2004 extended mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75.]

Supreme Court Nominating Commission

Dec. 2007

Jan. 2009

Sebelius received over $29,000 in campaign contributions from the members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, their spouses, or related businesses.

Related

Judicial selection in Kansas, Ballotpedia.

Sebelius appoints wife of “dean of Ellis County Democratic politics” to Supreme Court Nominating Commission. Kansas Meadowlark, July 3, 2006.

District Court Nominating Commission Works as Designed: 3 of 3 nominees are Democrats in a county with 21% Democrats, Kansas Meadowlark, May 12, 2008.

Gov. Sebelius appoints new District Court judge — one of her political contributors, Kansas Meadowlark, June 5, 2008.

Did $13,000 given to Gov. Sebelius play part in Supreme Court Nominating Commission appointment?, Kansas Meadowlark, June 28, 2008.

Whom will Sebelius appoint to Kansas Supreme Court? A judge or Obama/Sebelius donor?, Kansas Meadowlark, Dec. 9, 2008.

The chase begins using this data by many political activists to get mail ballots returned, or to get their people to the polls on election day.

This is the first election with the 50% price increase for the “advance voting public service request.” Statewide voter files and advance data service now cost $300 from the Secretary of State. County data is also available from county election offices.

The Advance voting files come in three flavors for those subscribing:

• The “Sent” file lists all voters being mailed ballots.

• The “Return” file lists voters returning ballots by mail. [In theory, a subset of the Sent.]

• The “In Person” file lists voters for ballots cast on-site at county advance sites.

These files from the Secretary of State are cumulative, showing new running totals every day.

Sent Ballots

Here’s a daily summary of the number of advance ballots sent, with a breakdown by party and gender.

The follow breakdowns reflect the sent ballot data from Friday (2026-07-17):

Gender breakdown

Almost 64% of the mail ballots were to females, which is an early edge of nearly 13,500 ballots for female voters.

Party breakdown

In the early mail ballots Democrats received about 47% vs. 41% for Republicans, with about 11% to Unaffiliated. That’s an early 2800 ballot lead for Democrats.

Age interval breakdown

The first day of mail ballots includes voters with a “Permanent Advance Voting Status,” so that includes a number of elderly.

The 85+ age group received more ballots than any other age interval.

Crosstabs

Gender by Age

Females for all age intervals received more ballots than males the first few days.

Male voters are a minority in Kansas. May 2026 voter registration data shows nearly 90,000 more female voters in Kansas than males.

This is curious since a look at US Census data says there are more males than females in all age intervals under 65 in Kansas.

Party by Age

Democrats have an edge in early mail ballots sent for all age intervals under 80. Only above 80 did more Republican voters have an edge.

Returned Ballots

On day one 19 counties reporting receiving ballots back the same day they were sent. By Friday 30 counties reported receiving ballots.

In Person Ballots

I’m not sure how the 105 counties handle in-person voting, but 29 counties reported on Thursday the start of in person voting.

Look for updates on the Advance Voting stats the next two Mondays.

We’ll look at more stats on Returned and In Person ballots in those reports.

Related

But according to Social Security Help America Vote Verification data there were over 1.3 million voter registration transactions that were matched to dead people since 2011.

Has the press investigated the nearly 108 million voter registration transactions submitted since 2011, with nearly 30 million rejected for not matching Social Security information?

This article gives a brief introduction to HAVV data, and how specific metrics can be used for comparisons across states. The states with highest “No Match” and “Deceased Match” metrics in HAVV historical data are presented. Finally, scatterplots of “Deceased Match” vs “No Match” rates show clusters of similar states in the HAVV history data.

Perhaps the HAVV problems demonstrated here can wake up authorities to voter registration problems and the lack of transparency.

A black box system like HAVV only makes the public suspect the process more. One easy fix: Allow citizens to use FOIA or state open records to explore problems, like when 50% or more of matches are to dead people, or even when 50% or more of the transactions do not match Social Security records.

There can be alternative explanations for the HAVV numbers, perhaps the same person applying over and over again, some sort of computer glitch, or other unknown factors. But why the lack of transparency at both state and federal levels?

Hiding voter registration problems that need attention does not give the public confidence.

Help America Vote Verification data

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, commonly known as the “Motor Voter” law, explicitly required state Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) and other driver-licensing agencies to provide eligible citizens with the opportunity to register to vote.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 required individuals, who register to vote and do not have a valid driver’s license, to provide the last four digits of their Social Security Number (SSN). To fulfill the legal mandate to verify this information, the Social Security Administration (SSA) created the Help America Vote Verification (HAVV) system.

A recently-introduced SSA Open Data Portal enables quicker analysis of weekly HAVV data. See this article for details.

The HAVV system lets states submit name + date of birth + last four digits of SSN (when no driver’s license is available) for verification against SSA records. SSA returns whether there’s a match and whether any match is to a deceased record.

These are transactions, not unique “voter registration forms” or unique people. The same individual’s information can be (and often is) submitted multiple times, e.g., for initial registration, absentee/mail ballot requests, updates, or system re-checks.

HAVV reveals inconsistencies in how data are submitted and matched that deserve investigation, especially in high-anomaly states and periods.

Metrics for comparing HAVV data among states

Comparing raw HAVV data across states is difficult because the range of numbers is huge between small and large states.

Computing certain important percentages is one way to facilitate comparisons.

I add these two computed values to my analysis of HAVV data:

The Percent No Match value measures how many HAVV transactions match Social Security data.

The Percent Match Deceased value measures how many deceased are part of the records matching the Social Security records.

Unfortunately at present, there is no way to see details of data when extreme results are observed in the data. Why are warning signs in the data ignored?

Congress should mandate full disclosure of all records for a state when extremes like a “No Match” rate of 50% or higher, or a “Match Deceased” rate of 50% or higher, are observed in weekly data.

Example state: Pennsylvania

Stacked plots of time series of total transactions, percent “no match” and percent “deceased match” for a state give insight into the HAVV process used in a state.

See the stack plots for Pennsylvania:

The blue weekly total transactions line shows activity increased significantly in Pennsylvania starting in late 2021 and has had a number of peaks and valleys since then. The peaks often can be correlated to particular elections, and sometimes to particular voter registrations drives held by a variety of groups in a state.

The red percent “No Match” line reflects how many transactions could not be matched to Social Security records. Luckily for Pennsylvania, since 2022 there is a downward “No Match” trend — more transactions are matching.

The black percent “Deceased Match” line shows relatively few dead in the Social Security matches for a given week.

Both the “No Match” and “Deceased Match” can vary widely across time, and among the states.

High “No Match” states

Five states have historical “No Match” rates higher than 40% with three states above 70% no match from 2011 to 2016. When will this be investigated?

From Jan. 2011 through June 2026 California had nearly 10 million HAVV transactions, but nearly 7 million (72%) have not matched Social Security records!! How is that possible? Where is the investigation?

The states of Maryland and Nevada are not far behind percentage-wise, with 71% overall of HAVV transactions not matching in Maryland and 70% in Nevada.

High “Deceased Match” states

Four states have overall “Deceased Match” rates higher than 10% from 2011 to 2026. There’s a large gap between these four states and other states.

A low volume of transactions in some states like Alaska can create erratic spikes in weekly data, but the overall counts show Alaska with about 14.5% of their HAVV matches are to dead people.

Mississippi had extremely low “Deceased Match” rates until late 2016. Some of the erratic changes may be due to low counts, since Mississippi’ raw numbers are considerable smaller than Alabama’s.

Both Alabama and Kansas show slight upward trends in the week “Deceased Match” rates. What changed in Alabama in early 2017? What changed in Kansas in early 2019? (Kansas open records failed to provide any clues when I tried to investigate a week in 2024 with over 50% “Deceased Match” rate.)

Why is there so little transparency about this?

State Clusters: Deceased vs No Match

Using the two metrics in a single plot can create “clusters” of states with similar numbers of both values.

2011 - 2026

A scatterplot of all the HAVV history and current data through the end of June, shows some clusters of states.

Four states (AK, AL, KS, MS) with high “Match Deceased” rates are at the upper left below, while three states (CA, MD, NV) with high “No Match” rates are the the lower right.

Here is data for all the states using all available HAVV data from the end of June.

What’s Next?

With the new SSA Open Data Portal with more-usable data, I’ll be monitoring what’s going on in the HAVV states through the Nov. election.

Data and plots

View HAVV plots (like the Pennsylvania stack plots above) for any of the HAVV states on this GitHub page.

Each state folder show Transactions, NoMatch and Deceased plots in two formats, .png and .svg. All the HAVV data for the specific state is in an Excel file in the same folder.

Related

Kansas healthcare foundations spent almost $9 million from 2017 to 2024 on a project to build capacity in many phases of “integrated voter engagement (IVE),” which was a technique used to turn Colorado blue about 15 years ago.

Four election-related nonprofits involved in IVE accepted funding from a major abortion advocacy group in 2025.

Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation

A recent LifeNews article explained that between 2000 and 2018 the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (STBF), which billionaire Warren Buffett established and named after his late wife, donated $4 billion to pro-abortion groups.

Some of that money has been flowing to Kansas.

A March Watchdog Lab article revealed the STBF sent $2.2 million to abortion clinics in Kansas, as well as $101K to ACLU Kansas in 2024.

STBF filed their IRS 990 tax filing for 2025 on May 5th, which revealed more current grants to Kansas. [Most nonprofits will not file their 2025 IRS 990s until late this year.]

The diagram below shows these six grants totaling nearly $4 million sent to Kansas recipients in 2025:

In 2025, like in 2024, STBF gave $1.1 million to Kansas abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood Great Plains in Overland Park, and Trust Women Foundation in Wichita.

The other four recipients of STBF 2025 grants had all been part of the Kansas integrated voter engagement project from 2016 to 2024. In this group of four only ACLU Kansas Foundation received STBF grants in both 2024 and 2025.

Nonprofit election involvement

Information about the four election-related nonprofits will be described below: first IVE activities and other past projects, followed by current work.

ACLU Foundation of Kansas

During the 2017-2024 IVE project, ACLU was to “build long-term power among a diverse cross-section of Kansans.”

Conduct digital engagement, trainings, and in-person organizing to raise awareness of core civil rights and liberties issues and build long-term power among a diverse cross-section of Kansans.

In 2023 ACLU Kansas celebrated its “vote from jail” project in Johnson County.

ACLU Foundation of Kansas received almost 10 times as much in its 2025 STBF grant as compared to 2024.

The ACLU of Kansas is actively involved in election-related work, primarily through voting rights advocacy, litigation against perceived restrictive laws (lawfare), redistricting challenges, and nonpartisan Election Protection efforts.

ACLU Foundation of Kansas is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit while ACLU of Kansas is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit.

The ACLU Kansas nonprofits are a strong proponents of “abortion rights.”

ACLU Kansas opposes the 2026 Judicial Selection Amendment, and is taking a leadership role in that opposition with ACLU Executive Director, Micah Cubic, the chair of Kansas United for Impartial Courts.

Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice

Kansas Appleseed launched their IVE project in Southeast Kansas in 2017 (10 counties) and Southwest Kansas in 2019 (5 counties).

In 2018 and 2019, Kansas Appleseed received $25K grants from George Soros’ Foundation to Promote Open Society.

Kansas Appleseed actively works on civic engagement and voting rights as a core part of its mission to promote an inclusive Kansas.

Their efforts focus on two main areas:

• Opposing voter ID and election security measures (what critics call “voter suppression laws”)

• Boosting voter turnout through education and outreach

Kansas Appleseed opposes the 2026 Judicial Selection Amendment.

Loud Light

In 2019-2020 Loud Light and ACLU Kansas orchestrated having Gov. Laura Kelly mail 277,000 voter registration forms to recipients of public benefits.

Loud Light received $100,000 from Kansas Health Foundation’s IVE project in 2022 for “support for Loud Light’s mission to transform Kansas by building better democracy. This is done by building community power, issue advocacy, issue education, leadership development, coalition building, engaging in pro-democracy litigation, increasing voter registration and increasing voter turnout.”

Loud Light’s activities include:

• Voter registration drives targeting students and young people, especially with its civic engagement fellowships.

• Voter education on deadlines, ID rules, and how to vote.

• Turnout mobilization and pledge-to-vote campaigns.

Loud Light opposes the 2026 Judicial Selection Amendment.

Voter Network

This article gives a background of The Voter Network and its “relational organizing” project, Voter-to-Voter:

IRS 990 tax filings by The Voter Network (and its creators) show growth in yearly revenues and expenditures.

On July 7 Micah Kubic, ACLU Executive Director, addressed a Zoom meeting hosted by The Voter Network for their “Voter-to-Voter” primary kickoff.

When elections don’t make sense, when close elections go the “wrong” way, the progressive nonprofit money spent to build The Voter Network and its “relational organizing” capacity is probably a big factor in any explanation, especially in Johnson County.

The right is lacking similar nonprofit organizations and funding to counter what the left is doing in Kansas elections.

Related

Kansas United for Impartial Courts is a consortium ACLU Kansas, Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, and other nonprofits

Here are the “top 10” lists for the last 30 days, and the last 90 days, based on ad dollars amounts.

Top 10 ads last 30 days

Five of the top ten ads in the last 30 days on Meta reflect the “yes” vs “no” battle over the Kansas constitutional amendment to appear on Kansas ballots on Aug. 4.

Top 10 ads last 90 days

Adam Hamilton for US Senate dominated Facebook/Instagram ads over the last ninety days.

Philip Sarnecki is the only gubernatorial candidate in this top 10 list.

I’m hoping to extend this digital ad reporting to include recent ads on Google/YouTube, X and Snapchat.

Related

Nonprofit: Kansas Future Fund

In late May the Sunflower State Journal reported a new nonprofit, Kansas Future Fund, was buying video ads in support of Vicki Schmidt for Kansas Governor.

Nonprofits need not disclose donors in their IRS 990 tax filings, but one donor to Kansas Future Fund was accidentally found in a Jan. 2026 campaign finance report filed by former Kansas State Senator Jeff Longbine.

Longbine left he Kansas Senate in Jan. 2025, but filed a report in Jan. 2026 since he had not closed his campaign account.

Longbine reported contributing $5000 in to the Kansas Future Fund on Aug. 12, 2025.

The planning started long ago.

The Kansas Future Fund was incorporated as a Kansas business by Raney Gilliland on June 12, 2025. Gilliland served in the Kansas Legislative Research Department for forty years before retirement in 2019. He had been the director from 2012 to 2019.

The IRS shows no information about this likely 501(c)(4) organization, which will be filing an IRS 990 likely late next year.

Connections among Schmidt, Longbine and Gov. Laura Kelly

An Oct. 18, 2012 press release from kansascommonsense.com showed Vicki Schmidt and Jeff Longbine were part of the same "common sense" group as Laura Kelly at that time ...

FORMER LEGISLATORS APPLAUD LEADERS FOR COMMON SENSE VALUES
October 18th, 2012

TOPEKA-Today, a group of former traditional Republican legislators applauded leaders from across the state for their common sense leadership and dedication to Kansas schools, families and values. The group also encouraged Kansans to exercise their right and vote.

"Kansans deserve leaders that are focused on finding solutions to the challenges that face our state and will serve as common sense, independent voices for our communities," said former Assistant Majority Leader and State Chair of the Republican Party Rep. Rochelle Chronister. "What Kansans don't need more of are rubberstamp politicians. Kansans need true leaders looking out for their constituents' needs, not the demands of special interest groups."

After careful consideration, the following leaders have proven themselves to be strong advocates for our children, schools and the elderly. They have worked hard to defend our schools, create jobs and protect our way of life. However, more importantly, these leaders have proven themselves to be willing to put the best interest of our state above partisan politics and do what's right for future generations of Kansas children.

The recognized leaders include:

Rep. Elaine Bowers, Republican, Concordia
Sen. Jay Emler, Republican, Lindsborg
Mr. Tom Hawk, Democrat, Manhattan
Sen. Tom Holland, Democrat, Baldwin City
Ms. Lisa Johnston, Democrat, Overland Park
Sen. Laura Kelly, Democrat, Topeka
Sen. Kelly Kultala, Democrat, Kansas City
Sen. Jeff Longbine, Republican, Emporia
Sen. Carolyn McGinn, Republican, Sedgwick
Ms. Juanita Roy, Democrat, Lenexa
Sen. Vicki Schmidt, Republican, Topeka
Rep. Kay Wolf, Republican, Prairie Village

Chronister went on to say, "it is easy to get discouraged by how negative the process has become over the years. However, the only way to change the tone is by making your voice heard and exercising your right to vote.

FEC Super PAC Supporting: Defend US PAC

Defend US PAC (a super PAC, independent expenditures only) first appeared in the Kanas City Market on Thursday.

On Friday The Sunflower State Journal gave details about ad buys by Defend US PAC: “New outside PAC spends nearly $1 million in governor’s race for Schmidt.”

Defend US PC has been around since 2017 and is based in Arlington, VA.

All of the PAC’s FEC filings are listed here, but currently the FEC site is not showing details from recent filings.

Opposing

FEC Super PAC: School Freedom Fund

While nonprofit Kansas Future Fund is supporting Vicki Schmidt for governor, a School Freedom Fund federal super PAC is opposing her in TV ads.

Sunflower State Journal was first to report these ads in June. The Hill reported the $2 million ad buy the next day. The press release by Club for Growth was the source of The Hill’s information.

It's a bit confusing, but the 501(c)(4) Club for Growth nonprofit can use the name School Freedom Fund for its advocacy, education and grassroots work, but then have a separate related super PAC organization with the same name.

Club for Growth files an IRS 990 as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, identifying School Freedom Fund as a related tax-exempt organization with a separate EIN. School Freedom Fund is controlled by the parent Club for Growth.

But the money for the School Freedom Fund ads comes from the super PAC, and not the nonprofit. This link shows all the FEC filings by the super PAC:

Note the "Mar Monthly" filing (F3XA) from April that shows the super PAC's most recent donor was $5 million from Jeff Yass. The June filing shows no donors.

An Inside Philanthropy article from March 2023 said Jeff Yass “as cofounder of the trading powerhouse Susquehanna International Group (SIG) … has amassed a mighty fortune that Forbes currently puts at $28.5 billion."

Grok AI says this: Jeff Yass is a billionaire co-founder and managing director of Susquehanna International Group (SIG), a major Philadelphia-area trading and market-making firm. He is a registered Libertarian with a strong libertarian-leaning philosophy, often aligned with free-market, low-tax, and school-choice causes.

Yass' libertarian leanings are consistent with Club for Growth, but it's unclear how that connects with the Kansas governor's race.

Grok says there are "No significant direct connections between Jeff Yass ... and Kansas or Kansas politics appear in public records."

Use the link above to monitor the PACs contributions and expenditures over time.

But specific expenditures related to the ads against Vicki Schmidt are not at all clear in the reports.

Pond Naramore from Lawrence is now Marshall’s primary challenger. See my May 26th posting on X about Naramore’s filing.

A check of voter registration records for the Maple Street address in Lawrence suggests candidate “Pond Naramore” is registered voter “Arch P. Naramore.” Arch must be using his middle name Pond in the candidate filing.

The Wayback Machine shows a Johnson County Election Office page from 2004 where Arch P. Naramore challenged incumbent US Senator Sam Brownback in a similar way.

The phone number from 22 years ago on the JoCo site matches the phone number for Arch P. Naramore in current voter registration records. So, Naramore’s middle name must be Pond.

Age information from the 2004 AP article is also consistent with current voter registration records.

The JoCo page also reveals Naramore was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Brownback defeated Naramore in the Aug. 2024 primary with 286,839 votes (86.9%) to Naramore’s 42,880 votes (13%).

Comment on X about email address

Earlier today midwestartist on X posted questions about Naramore’s candidacy based on my previous posting.

When I initially looked at Naramore’s candidacy in May, I failed to notice what email address he gave the Kansas Secretary of State. The SoS office likely copied exactly what Naramore put on the application form.

Naramore’s email address is also online at the JoCo Election Office and other county clerk sites across the state.

What does the “rhinorepublicrat8647” part mean?

Coded message?

rhinorepublicat

When “RINO” means Republican in Name Only, what is Naramore suggesting when he has “rhino” as part of his email address?

8647

In May former FBI Director James Comey posted an Instagram a photo of seashells on a North Carolina beach arranged to spell out “86 47". Comey captioned it something like “Cool shell formation on my beach watch.”

The FBI contends that the message should be read as “86” (reportedly slang for “get rid of,” or as the FBI maintains, “kill), and “47” is allegedly a reference to Trump, the 47^th president. The Free Speech Center, May 1, 2026.

And one DC-based nonprofit contributed $14 million of the $23 million that shaped that gubernatorial race.

After “buying” the gubernatorial race in Kansas in 2022, Kansas Values Institute appears to have set it sights on making sure Kansans cannot vote on Supreme Court judges.

A recent video by the Kansas Fair Court Fund complains that billionaires would tear down fair courts and buy seats in the Supreme Court, yet KVI saw nothing wrong with “buying” the Kansas governor in 2022 with $23 million.

The $23 million is a staggering amount for an election decided by about 22,000 votes.

The Sunflower State Journal was first to report last week the directors for Kansas Fair Court Fund included: Cathy Hersh, Joyce Allegrucci (former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius campaign manager and chief of staff), and Mike Fleming (former President of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association, and appointed by Gov. Kelly to serve on the Kansas Racing Commission) .

While researching nonprofit groups, the connection between KVI and Kansas Fair Courts Fund was found by accident from a statement made by Grok AI.

I was not seeing any connection between KFCF and other groups, because the evidence was hidden in the HTML on the Kansas Fair Courts Fund website.

There is nothing obvious at first on the “Donate to Kansas Fair Court Fund” page that suggests anything about where the money is going, but the first clue can be seen by clicking on the “X” icon at the bottom of the page.

Here’s the evidence Grok provided for the link between Kansas Fair Court Fund and Kansas Values Institute:

The link secure.qgiv.com/for/bq8tbb/ is directly hosted under the Kansas Values Institute’s donation system.

Direct Evidence from the Page Itself:

•The live donation page at https://secure.qgiv.com/for/bq8tbb/ is titled “Donate to the Kansas Fair Court Fund”.

•It explicitly displays “Kansas Values Institute” as the organization (usually in the footer, header, or receipt/branding section of Qgiv forms).

This is standard for Qgiv (a popular nonprofit donation platform): each campaign gets a unique code like /for/bq8tbb/, and the organization name is embedded on the form.

Additional Confirmation:

The page is part of KVI’s official fundraising infrastructure. Qgiv donation links for Kansas Values Institute projects consistently use this format.

Kansas Values Institute’s own site (kansasvaluesinstitute.org) promotes fair courts work and directs donations through their system.

This is the strongest possible proof short of backend access: the page itself brands the fund under Kansas Values Institute. You can visit the URL directly to see “Kansas Values Institute” listed on it.

A review of the HTML that makes up the donation page (in Google Chrome, right click on the form and select “View Page Source” ) shows Kansas Values Institute in the “header-text-container”, the “banner-header-content”, and the link to X.

So if Kansas Fair Courts Fund is not another project of Kansas Values Institute, why is their name on the donation page in three places?

Kansans for Fair Courts is a project name Kansas Values Institute has used since 2013.

KVI’s IRS 990s show it has raised nearly $43 million since 2011 and spent $42.5 million on Kansas elections as a “nonpartisan, nonprofit.” What will KVI spend in 2026? [The numbers for 2025 will not be released until Nov. 2026 at the earliest.]

Nonprofit and other dark money have been buying Kansas elections for years.

Voters need to wake up to what nonprofits are doing in elections, such as the nonprofits that make up Kansas United for Impartial Courts and their $8,000 and $12,000/month jobs to block the constitutional amendment.

Related

Updated July 15 to reflect SSA changes to history file in late June, including the latest HAVV data through June 27, 2026.

New SSA HAVV Data Portal

In early June 2026 the Social Security Administration changed how it released Help America Voter Verification (HAVV) data.

Later in June SSA made additional improvements, including replacing the difficult-to-work-with-650-tabsheet Excel file of history data, with a single .csv file, which was in the same format as the current data.

HAVV history data

Data file: havv-weekly-usage.csv

This file with header and 32,793 data rows can easily be loaded into Excel or read by analysis software.

When loaded into Excel, the history file looks like this:

SSA should rename “AAMVA State Name” to simply be “State Name.” (AAMVA is the name of the nonprofit that processes HAVV data for SSA.)

Data dictionary

The SSA Open Data Portal gives a data dictionary for the HAVV terms:

History summary stats

Of the 70,355,805 transactions from weeks ending Jan. 8, 2011 through Apr. 29, 2023, there were 47,857,738 matches (for 68.02%) and 22,497,311 “no match” transactions (31.98%). Why is this HAVV “no match” rate so high from 2011 to 2023? Nearly one in three HAVV transactions do no match SSA information.

Of the 47,857,738 matches there were 768,400 “single deceased match” (or 1.61%). This overall death match rate seems more reasonable than some of the weekly stats fir certain states in certain weeks.

The history file shows fields Unprocessed, Multiple Deceased Match, and Multiple Mixed Match have very low counts historically, and likely can usually be ignored.

While the summary history stats show 50 states + DC, not all states are in the recent and current data.

HAVV recent and current data

I call this the “recent and current” file since new “current” HAVV data from the week ending 6/27/2026 was appended to 6364 data rows from 5/6/2023 through 6/20/2026.

In addition to the HAVV weekly data (HAVV-weekly.csv), it’s unclear why a new HAVV monthly data file (HAVV-monthly.csv) was introduced. Combining multiple weeks of data into a monthly data file can “smooth” the data, and might “hide” spikes that should be investigated.

Data file: HAVV-weekly.csv

Each weekly update to HAVV transactions appends 41 rows of new data to recent data back to May 2023.

It’s unclear why SSA does not use some sort of year boundary instead of splitting data between April 2023 (history) and May 2023 (recent).

It’s also unclear why SSA puts a blank line of data at the end of HAVV-weekly.csv and HAVV-monthly.csv, which needs to be removed when loaded into analysis software.

When loaded into Excel, the recent plus current data looks like this (after removal of the blank line at the end):

Instead of Week End Date the monthly file has column Month End Date. It’s unclear whether the monthly file is a collection of weeks from a weekly file, or if SSA used actual month boundaries for the monthly data.

Like the history file, SSA should rename “AAMVA State Name” to simply be “State Name.”

States

The recent and current file has from 38 to 42 states reporting, so unlike the history file, not all states are represented. These states and DC are not in the recent and current files (and have mostly zeros as data in the history file).

• District of Columbia

• Kentucky (9-digit SSN)

• New Mexico (9-digit SSN)

• North Dakota (no voter registration requirement)

• Oklahoma

• South Carolina (9-digit SSN)

• Tennessee (9-digit SSN)

• Virginia (9-digit SSN)

• West Virginia

The five states above shown using 9-digit SSNs on voter registration applications as well as North Dakota, which does not use vote registrations, are exempt from HAVV.

It’s unclear why DC, Oklahoma and West Virginia are not reporting HAVV data at this time.

Finally, Delaware only has 3 weeks, and Hawaii only as 15 weeks, of “recent” and “current” data, sometimes it makes sense to exclude these states for too much missing data. So, often analysis with recent and current data will only involve 40 states.

Recent and Current summary stats

Of the 37,626,423 transactions from weeks ending May 6, 2023 through June 27, 2026, there were 30,399,650 matches (for 80.792%) and 7,226,771 “no match” transactions (19.20%). These recent and current stats are much better than the history stats.

Of the 30,399,650 matches there were 553,420 “single deceased match” (or 1.82%). This recent and current deceased rate is slightly higher (0.21%) than the history file.

Combining history with recent/current data

Now that HAVV history and recent/current files have the same formats, the two can be concatenated together to form a complete HAVV file for analysis.

The combined file has 33,411 rows of data from 2011-01-08 through 20206-06-27, which is easily manipulated in Excel or other analysis software.

Github repository

Two RStudio notebooks with R code were created to perform data quality checks on the raw HAVV files and combine them into a single file for analysis.

After creating separate files by state, analysis plots were created for each state showing three metrics by week: total transactions, % Match Rate, and % Deceased Match.

These Notebooks are in this GitHub archive:
https://github.com/EarlGlynn/Help-America-Vote-Verification

Step 1. Process HAVV History

The new HAVV-History-2023-and-before folder was totally re-written to reflect the SSA changes to the HAVV history — a single .csv instead of hundreds of tab sheets in an Excel file. Many data problems were resolved by the SSA improvements.

The .Rmd (R markdown) file, HAVV-First-Look-Rmd, has the R code that is processed with all details shown in an .html notebook, which can be viewed in a browser.

Briefly this is the processing in the notebook:

• Section 2: Background information is in section

• Sections 3-4: Download and read the HAVV history file. Add 3 new fields for use in analysis. Create summary stats.

• Section 5: Write complete history file with new fields to Excel and .csv files. Create separate files by state to make single-state analysis much easier, along with stats by state

Step 2. Process recent and current HAVV data and combine with history

The HAVV-Data-2026-06-27 folder shows how to combine the HAVV history data with the recent/current data. With improvements made by SSA in late June, this is now almost a trivial process, so “reconcile” should now simply be “combine”.

This folder has a yyyy-mm-dd date to reflect the latest HAVV data available when process.

The R-markdown script, Reconcile-HAVV-History-with-Recent-Data.Rmd, has the R code. The .html version with the same name shows the processing results.

Briefly, the processing in this notebook:

• Section 2: Download history, monthly and weekly HAVV files and create metadata to detect any changes.

• Section 3: Read recent/current HAVV file and add three new fields to aid in analysis. Remove blank last row. Perform some data quality checks. Verify which states are present and missing. Create some overall and stats by state.

• Section 4: Read HAVV history file.

• Section 5: Combine history with recent/current for an “HAVV All” file. Write new combined file, and create separate “combined” state files.

Step 3. State Plots

The plots are in the folder HAVV-Plots-2026-06-27 with an RStudio Notebook “HAVV-Plot-Template” that produces various plots of time series for a single state.

This “Template” is a parameterized notebook that can used with a “driver”, HAVV-Plot-Driver, to produce plots for all states in a batch.

The main parameter changed in the Driver was to look at different ranges of data by changing the FirstYear parameter: 2011-2026 (all data), 2019-2026, 2023-2026 (recent and current data).

Each run of the “driver” was captured in a separate .html file, e.g., HAVV-Plot-Driver-2011.html shows the processing of all states with a year range from 2011 to 2026.

The plots are all put in a State folder, e.g., State-2011-2026, with separate subfolders for each state.

These are the graphics files create for the state of Alabama:

For now, both .png and scalable .svg files are created for each plot.

The SVG files scale themselves to various resolutions, which is nice when that works.

In addition to graphics files, an Excel file containing all the data is available for inspection. The .html file shows the processing from the template R-markdown file.

Example plots are shown below for Alabama, Maryland, and Kansas.

2011-2026 plots: Alabama-2026-06-27-All.png

Inspect all the Alabama plots online at GitHub from this link.

2011-2026 plots: Maryland-2026-06-27

Inspect all the Maryland plots online at GitHub from this link.

2011-2026 plots: Kansas-2026-06-27

Inspect all the Kansas plots online at GitHub from this link.

Old SSA HAVV Site

In June 2026 the Social Security Administration changed the release of HAVV data after not reliably publishing weekly updates for nearly a year in a machine-readable format.

This HAVV-analysis GitHub repository documented analysis using the older version of HAVV data.

In the past weekly HAVV data were released as a new tab in an ever-growing Excel “entire HAVV dataset.” Apparently, this nearly 760-tab Excel file was tediously updated manually. Quite a pain!

This structure was not easy to update, and was not easy to use for time series of each state without writing a program to look at all the tab sheets. I wrote R scripts that could read all the old tab sheets and create new HAVV summaries in a few minutes.

The last weekly update SSA made to this this Excel file was the 2025-04-05 tab. This “final” old-style havv-weekly-usage.xlsx file can still be downloaded using Wayback from the April 27, 2026 HAVV Transactions by State page.

In addition to the weekly HAVV state updates, the Excel file had tabs for yearly totals, as well as a “totals since 2011” tab. With a few exceptions, all the yearly totals matched the sum of all the yearly tab sheets.

HTML versions of the weekly HAVV releases, and yearly totals, from Jan. 8, 2011 through Apr. 11, 2026 can be viewed on Wayback using the “Choose a Week” selection.

For example, view the final week of HAVV data by state before the change from Apr. 11, 2026 here.

This old data may be useful in exploring irregularities in the current HAVV data files.

Related