The Kansas Supreme Court offered a mixed ruling Friday that combined several challenges to a 2021 election law, siding with state officials on one provision, reviving challenges to others and offering the possibility that at least one could be lifted before the election. general this year. .
But it was the majority opinion on the voter signature verification measure — which asserted that there is no right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights — that drew vehement dissent from three of the court’s seven justices.
The measure requires election officials to compare signatures on early mail-in ballots to a person’s voter registration. The state Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of that lawsuit, but the majority rejected arguments from voting rights groups that the measure violates state constitutional voting rights.
In fact, Justice Caleb Stegall, writing for the majority, said the dissenting justices unfairly accused the majority of ignoring prior precedent, holding that the court failed to identify a “fundamental right to vote” in the state constitution.
“It simply doesn’t exist,” Stegall wrote.
Justice Eric Rosen, one of three who dissented, responded: “It is surprising to conclude that the citizens of Kansas do not have a fundamental right to vote under their state constitution.”
“I cannot and will not tolerate this betrayal of our constitutional duty to safeguard the fundamental rights of Kansans,” Rosen added.
On the other hand, the high court unanimously supported challengers to a different provision that makes it a crime for someone to give the appearance of being an election official. Voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters of Kansas and the nonprofit Loud Light, have argued that the measure suppresses free speech and their ability to register voters, as some may wrongly assume that volunteers are election workers, putting them at risk of criminal prosecution.
A Shawnee County District Court judge previously rejected the groups’ request for an emergency injunction, saying impersonation of a public official is not protected speech.
But the high court faulted the new law, noting that it does not include any requirement that prosecutors demonstrate a voter registration volunteer’s intent to misrepresent or deceive people into believing they are election officials, and thus “criminalizes speech honest” where “occasional misunderstandings” are bound to occur, Stegall wrote in the majority opinion.
“As such, it scans protected speech on its network,” Stegall said.
Because the lawsuit over the constitutionality of the impersonation law is likely to succeed, the state Supreme Court ordered the trial court to reconsider issuing an emergency injunction against it.
“Three years ago, Kansas League of Women Voters volunteers were forced to severely limit voter assistance due to this ambiguous and threatening law,” said Martha Pint, chapter president. crime, and we are confident that this provision will be quickly blocked when the case returns to district court.”
Loud Light Executive Director Davis Hammet said he hopes the trial court will “stop the irreparable harm caused daily by the law and allow us to resume voter registration before the general election.”
Neither Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab nor state Attorney General Kris Kobach responded to requests for comment on that part of the high court ruling.
Instead, in a joint statement, Schwab and Kobach focus on the high court’s language strengthening the signature verification law and its upholding of a provision that says individuals cannot collect more than 10 early votes to submit to voters. election officials.
“This ruling allows us to preserve reasonable election security laws in Kansas,” Schwab said.
Supporters argued that fights against vote collection restrictions “vote harvesting” and limits voter fraud. The GOP-led Legislature passed Kansas Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto. Critics have said it is a Republican reaction to unfounded claims that the 2020 elections were not valid, which triggered a wave of misinformation and voter suppression laws across the country.
Last year, the Kansas Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit challenging vote collection limitation and signature verification, stating that both undermine the right to vote. But the high court upheld the limit on vote collection, saying that “voters have numerous means available to deliver their votes” and that vote collection does not fall within the parameters of freedom of expression.
Kobach defended the majority opinion as “well-reasoned” and confirms that the Legislature has the constitutional authority to establish evidence “to ensure that voters are who they say they are.”
“And that’s exactly what Kansas’ signature verification requirement is,” Kobach said.
