The Kansas Supreme Court, in a ruling of significant consequence, has determined that no fundamental right to vote exists under the state’s constitution. This decision stems from litigation challenging three 2021 election laws. These laws were enacted despite a gubernatorial veto, reflecting the ongoing heated debate over election integrity and voter access.
In its opinion, the court addressed multiple aspects. Notably, it held that the right to vote is not classified as an “enumerated political right” under Section 2 of the Kansas Bill of Rights (Kansas Bill of Rights). This interpretation stands in opposition to the plaintiffs’ claim that the mandatory signature verification requirement infringes upon fundamental voting rights.
The court also endorsed the restriction on the number of advance ballots that a single person can deliver, finding this limitation constitutional. The reasoning cited was that delivering ballots does not constitute political or expressive conduct. However, the ruling took a different stance on the law’s provision criminalizing false representation of an election official. This portion of the law was deemed excessively broad, leading the court to remand it to a lower court for further consideration.
The backdrop of this ruling involves the controversy surrounding the 2021 laws (League of Woman Voters vs. Schwab). Key provisions included making it illegal to give the appearance of being an election official and limiting the collection and delivery of advance ballots by an individual to ten ballots. Voter rights advocates expressed concern that these statutes could penalize volunteers involved in voter registration and ballot collection efforts under broad interpretations of the law.
Justice Rosen, in his dissent, lamented the majority’s decision, arguing that it deprived Kansans of a vital democratic assurance. He writes, “It staggers my imagination to conclude that Kansas citizens have no fundamental right to vote under the state constitution.” His objections underscore the profound implications this decision may have for electoral processes in Kansas moving forward.
For more details, refer to JURIST’s report on the ruling here.