In a landmark decision, Kansas has reaffirmed its commitment to securing the integrity of its elections. A recent decision from the Kansas Supreme Court upholds critical measures that safeguard the voting process, ensuring that every citizen’s vote is counted and protected from potential fraud and manipulation.
The case revolves around three controversial Kansas election laws designed to improve the transparency and security of the election process.
The law first prohibited false representations by election officials, a common tactic used to mislead voters and disrupt the election process. The second requires strict verification of signatures on the ballot in advance, to ensure that the votes cast correspond to those of registered voters. Third and perhaps most controversial, it limits the number of ballots a single person can send, countering potential ballot schemes that could rig election results.
In 2021, several voting rights groups and private citizens began a lawsuit against the law, claiming that the legislative change violated several provisions of the state constitution.
The Daily Item reported:
The majority opinion reversed a 2023 appeals court decision that recognized restrictions on the fundamental right to vote would be subject to the highest legal bar for evaluation, or strict scrutiny.
Justice Caleb Stegall wrote for the majority, saying that voting instead of “political rights” in the Kansas Constitution has a lower bar for the regulation of basic rights.
“But just because the right to vote is not protected in our Bill of Rights does not mean that the constitutional guarantee of voting is weak or ineffective,” Stegall wrote. “On the contrary.”
Stegall wrote that in order for a voting law or regulation to be found unconstitutional, it must pass the “Butts test,” which means “the law must be shown to unreasonably burden the right to vote.” If voting is found to be a fundamental right, the burden will be on the government to show that new voting laws or regulations are narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve the state’s interests.
Critics of these electoral integrity laws claim that these measures disenfranchise voters, especially those in minority communities or those with limited access to voting facilities. He argued that the law was too restrictive and an obstacle to basic democratic rights.
However, the Kansas Supreme Court, in a detailed opinion, dismissed these claims. The court emphasized that these measures do not impose new qualifications on voters, but are only safeguards to verify that those participating in the election are valid and legal voters. The Court emphasized that maintaining accurate and reliable voter rolls is a critical aspect of electoral governance, which is strongly supported by the law.
WIBW reported:
Judges Biles, Eric Rosen, and Melissa Taylor Standridge concurred and dissented.
“The court unanimously held that the plaintiffs have met their burden of showing a substantial likelihood that their claim that the false representation statute is constitutionally unsound,” Biles said. “The majority of the court reversed and remanded the suit to the district court for consideration of the remaining temporary injunction factors.
“The majority of the court also held that the signature verification requirement was a valid attempt by the Legislature to provide ‘correct evidence’ of the right to be a qualified voter.
“But the court returned to the district court to consider whether the statute and its implementing regulations complied with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
“Finally, the majority of the court affirmed that the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim that the ballot collection restriction was constitutionally unsound, because the restriction was not a new qualification for the right to vote, and because the voter’s prohibited activity—ballot delivery—was not speech. politics or expressive acts.
Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, who is also a defendant, released a statement praising the court’s recent decision.
“The Judges were right. This ruling allows us to maintain adequate election security laws in Kansas. Signature verification has been the law for more than ten years. This important security measure is essential to our election system and the integrity of every vote,” said Schwab.
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, another defendant, also issued a statement.
“The excellent opinion of the Kansas Supreme Court confirms that the legislature has the constitutional authority to establish evidence that ensures that voters are who they say they are. And that is exactly what the signature verification requirement of Kansas does. Important protections for the security of these elections remain in place. The court was also right. while rejecting the argument that limiting the number of ballots someone can cast limits freedom of speech.The Kansas law limiting the number of ballots a person casts to ten is an important way to limit ballot harvesting.
You can read the opinion here.
