Court: Kansas can't require voters to show citizenship proof

AP News,  April 29, 2020

"A federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday that Kansas can’t require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register, dealing a blow to efforts by Republicans in several states who have pursued restrictive voting laws as a way of combating voter fraud.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Salt Lake City upheld a federal judge’s injunction nearly two years ago that prohibited Kansas from enforcing the requirement, which took effect in 2013. The appeals court, in a a ruling that consolidated two appeals, found the statute former Gov. Sam Brownback signed into law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the “motor-voter law.”

Many experts say voter fraud is extremely rare, and critics contend the Republican-led efforts are actually meant to suppress turnout from groups who tend to back Democrats, including racial minorities and college students.

...

In reaching the decision, the appeals court noted the 'significant burden quantified by the 31,089 voters who had their registration applications cancelled or suspended' in Kansas. They said the interests of the secretary of state do 'not justify the burden imposed on the right to vote.'

Kansas argued in court filings that it has a compelling interest in preventing voter fraud. It contended its proof-of-citizenship requirement is not a significant burden and protects the integrity of elections and the accuracy of voter rolls.

Critics countered that the documentary proof-of-citizenship law was “a disastrous experiment” that damaged the state’s voter rolls, disenfranchised tens of thousands and eroded confidence in the state’s elections.

While the court agreed “in the abstract” that Kansas has a legitimate interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters, the court in an 84-page ruling said it did not see any evidence that such an interest made it necessary to burden voters’ rights in this case.

The judges noted that the district court had found essentially no evidence that the integrity of the state’s electoral process had been threatened, that the registration of ineligible voters had caused voter rolls to be inaccurate, or that voter fraud had occurred."

Read the full article...

Hannah Piercey

Close