While not an outright victory, Friday was a pretty good day for voting rights advocates in Kansas.
After three years of legal wrangling, their efforts were largely affirmed by the Kansas Supreme Court. The high court’s decisions mean organizations such as the League of Women Voters can once again encourage and help people register to vote without fear of running afoul of laws enacted in 2021 under the guidance of then-Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
Besides the League, plaintiffs included Loud Light, Kansas Appleseed for Law and Justice and the Topeka Independent Living Resource Center.
Defending state statutes were Secretary of State Scott Schwab’s office and Kobach. The case is LWV Kansas vs. Schwab.
At issue were three provisions in current law: That voting activists could be misinterpreted as election officials and as such would be a misrepresentation; that signatures on absentee ballots be verified to match those held on record, and that no more than 10 advance ballots can be returned to election offices by a single individual.
On being mistaken for an election official or acting in their capacity, the justices unanimously ruled the statute as “constitutionally infirm,” and remanded the decision back to Shawnee County District Court officials to handle other factors pertaining to the law so that voter advocates can do their jobs.
Proponents of the law say it’s necessary to combat financial scams.
Justice Caleb Stegall, who wrote the majority opinion, disagreed, saying “the law criminalizes honest speech.”
As for requiring the signatures on absentee ballots to match those officially held, the majority sided with the state to the extent that it is “a reasonable imposition,” but also remanded it back to district court to verify whether the law is uniformly enforced. If not, it could be struck down for not meeting the state constitution’s guarantee of due process.
Plaintiffs have argued the law is unreliable and burdensome to the elderly and disabled.
In regard to advance ballots, the high court sided with defendants Schwab and Kobach on limiting an individual to delivering no more than 10 on behalf of others.
The state has argued the law is necessary to prevent “ballot harvesting,” where absentee ballots are collected illegally to sway elections.
Plaintiffs have argued facilities like assisted living centers and nursing homes appreciate civic groups delivering residents’ ballots to their respective county clerk’s office.
The statutes made their way ignominiously through the legislature in 2021 by bypassing traditional means.
Neither the House nor Senate elections committees held hearings on the measures. No public testimony was allowed. Instead, the proposals were tacked on as amendments to other legislation and sailed through.
