The recent Kansas Appeals Court ruling on voting rights
Article/Voting - 6 minute read
Kansas voting rights have changed once again after the March 17, 2023 ruling by the Kansas Court of Appeals. Case 125,084 examined various election procedures and limits to decide if recent enactments applied by the Legislature promote or prohibit voting in accordance with the Kansas Constitution.
Select groups and individuals came together to sue the State and some officials with the intent of banning “the implementation of some voting law changes made in 2021.” Failing to do so in district court, they took the case to the Kansas Court of Appeals where they won.
Pertaining to this case is HB 2183, which went into effect July 1, 2021. Specifics of this bill relevant to this lawsuit include:
Created a new election crime called "False representation of an election official";
mandated that election officials reject any advance ballot in which the signature on the ballot does not match the signature on file for the voter; and
made it a crime to deliver more than 10 advance ballots to election officials on behalf of other voters. L. 2021, ch. 96, § 2, 3, 5.
League of Women Voters of Kansas, Loud Light, Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc., and Topeka Independent Living Resource Center were listed as the appellants in the case. Scott Schwab, in his official capacity as Kansas Secretary of State and Kris Kobach, in his official capacity as Kansas Attorney General were the appellees.
In the document on the court’s decision, it says, “All of the Plaintiffs, both groups and individuals, share an intense interest in promoting the electoral process in Kansas.” It also describes all of the nonprofit organizations as “nonpartisan.” However, it is important to note that 501(c)(3) organizations are simply “prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in – or intervening in – any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for elective public office.” In other words, as long as these groups aren’t endorsing political candidates in anyway, supporting or going against a political party in anyway, they can claim to be “nonpartisan” organizations. However, these organizations have a political ideology that is more resonant with those on the left. While they can’t support or oppose a political party, what they can do is support and oppose political policies, which they do, often pushing for policies that are more in line with the political left.
The League of Women Voters have a whole section on their website explaining how they are “fully committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion in principle and in practice.” An idea largely supported by the left. They also have as one of their “statement of positions” as “living wage,” a typically leftist idea that attacks capitalism and grows government. Co-President of the organization Martha Pint has also been quoted in an article for “abortion rights” during ‘Value Them Both.’
Loud Light, who I’ve written about before when writing on leftist propaganda, has advocated for gun control, the right to an abortion, legalizing marijuana, and has shown bias in their “educating” by referring to child protection legislation as “anti-trans” and “anti-LGBTQ” bills.
Kansas Appleseed is working to increase access to SNAP food assistance and passing the Debt Free Justice for Youth Act to “end the practice of imposing unaffordable fines and fees on youth and their families.” Also, on their contact form, you can choose from 19 different pronoun options. This is just to say that this is seemingly a more left-leaning organization.
Other plaintiffs included Douglas County resident Charley Crabtree, and Concordia residents Faye Huelsmann and Patricia Lewter, all of whom collect well over 10 ballots for voters with mobility issues.
The lawsuit the plaintiffs originally brought in June 2021, challenged the new election laws, initially moving for a temporary injunction on the ground that the false representation law violated their rights under section 11 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. Defendants disputed this, and the district court denied the injunction motion and Plaintiffs appealed. Due to lack of standing, a panel of this court dismissed the appeal. Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which was granted and is now pending.
Plaintiffs had also “challenged a new restriction that banned nonresidents from mailing advance ballot applications to Kansas voters. Two out-of-state organizations procured an injunction against that restriction in federal court because it violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” This claim was voluntarily dismissed from the suit by the Plaintiffs.
In the decision, they noted the Plaintiffs’ petition alleged:
The ballot collection restriction violates the right of freedom of speech and association under sections 3 and 11 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights;
both the ballot collection restriction and signature matching requirement violate the right to vote under article 5, section 1 of the Kansas Constitution and sections 1 and 2 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights;
the signature matching requirement violates the guarantee of equal protection under article 5, section 1 of the Kansas Constitution and sections 1 and 2 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights; and
the signature matching requirement violates due process under section 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.
Plaintiffs would later move for a partial temporary injunction against the signature matching requirement.
Due to how a “final decision” in Kansas is concluded, the Plaintiffs acknowledged the district court’s order did not fit the criteria as it did not dispose of the false representation issue which the district court ruled it had no jurisdiction to consider a dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim regarding the false election official crime.
When the case was brought to the Supreme Court, the panel of judges ruled the Plaintiffs have standing to sue. They ruled that the signature matching provision and the ballot collection restriction impairs the right to vote, and that the “ballot collection limitation statute does limit the free speech of the ballot collector but not the speech of the voter as expressed in the ballot.”
Loud Light released a statement on the ruling, referring to it as a “landmark ruling for voting rights.”
“This ruling is groundbreaking,” Loud Light’s statement said. “It guarantees voting as a fundamental right and any act that infringes on the right to vote is subject to the highest level of legal scrutiny (strict scrutiny). This means that if the state passes a law restricting voting rights, the state must prove a compelling interest justifies the law and then show that the law is narrowly tailored to meet that interest.”
Attorney General Kris Kobach says he will appeal the decision in an election law case.
“The decision by the three judges of the Kansas Court of Appeals is the most radical election law decision in the country. It is clearly wrong,” Kobach said. “The decision is directly contrary to what the U.S. Supreme Court has said, as well as what every state Supreme Court has said on the matter. The decision is also illogical. Having election officials make sure that it is your signature on your advance ballot doesn’t hurt your right to vote. It protects your vote from being stolen by someone else. This is especially true because the Kansas statute gives the voter a second chance to sign again when the signatures don’t match.”
To read the full decision, click here.
Thanks for reading. Be sure to like, share, and subscribe. You can also help support independent journalism in Kansas by buying me a coffee at buymeacoffee.com/kscon.