Last week, in what appears to be a very shocking ruling, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld a decision for voters that voting is not a constitutional right in Kansas. The recent ruling, deemed outrageous, has elicited differing reactions in the state, most notably from three justices who dissented.
The case originates from a bill of the Republican-dominated Kansas Legislature enacted in 2021 amid subsequent amendments to the election laws. One amendment required election officials to compare signatures on mail-in ballots to those on voter registration documents.
This measure led to a new law signed by Governor Doyle in April 2006. A lower court had dismissed a legal action against this measure, but the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court to decide whether or not the signature verification impinges on the rights of the voters to equal protection.
The majority opinion written by the court’s most conservative justice, Caleb Stegall Households, dismissed claims that a version of the state’s constitution that contains a Bill of Rights enshrined a right to vote. This, the dissenting justices were quick to note, grossly violates legal precedents recognized in the country.
Justice Eric Rosen described the majority decision as a betrayal of the state’s constitutional responsibility and said it was beyond his imagination that Kansas citizens could lose their voting right. Justice Melissa Taylor Standridge expressed perhaps even more sharply: There are no words to describe how the decision runs counter to the historical narrative, the law, and common reason: It is just wrong.
The consequences of this decision were potentially wide-reaching legally and socially as well. Experts representing Election officials stated that it may encourage state legislatures to enact more laws that may limit the opportunities for people to engage in advance voting and voting by mail, which may create confusion and controversy among the citizens.
Words to the effect of “The rules just keep changing” were uttered by Douglas County election officer Jamie Shew. ”And I believe that the role of the election administration is to ensure that not only voters do not get confused, they also do not get frustrated and abandon the process.”
These changes have happened even more vividly in the last years, especially when Republican-led states like Kansas started setting new limitations on the elections based on a fake ballot-stuffing threat. Amid the battle for the presidential nomination and the country looking ahead to the 2024 elections, today’s decision from Kansas provides a grim preview of how the right to vote remains under siege.
