Court says Kansas can’t require voters to show citizenship proof

[Edge-]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...izenship-proof

BELLE PLAINE, Kan. — A federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday that Kansas can’t require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register, dealing a blow to efforts by Republicans in several states who have pursued restrictive voting laws as a way of combating voter fraud.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Salt Lake City upheld a federal judge’s injunction nearly two years ago that prohibited Kansas from enforcing the requirement, which took effect in 2013. The appeals court, in a ruling that consolidated two appeals, found the statute former Gov. Sam Brownback signed into law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as the “motor-voter law.”

Many experts say voter fraud is extremely rare, and critics contend the Republican-led efforts are actually meant to suppress turnout from groups who tend to back Democrats, including racial minorities and college students.

The law was championed by former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who led President Donald Trump’s now-defunct voter fraud commission. Kobach was a leading source for Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally may have voted in the 2016 election.

Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, said the ruling doesn’t immediately affect other states because Kansas’s law was unique in requiring people to show a physical document such as a birth certificate or passport when applying to register to vote. However, Ho said the ruling is grounded in a broader constitutional principle that when a state significantly burdens the right to vote, it has to justify it.

“Kansas wasn’t able to muster evidence that the law in question here was necessary to prevent voter fraud, and I think that broader principle could have reverberations beyond the specific context of this case in a wide range of disputes over voting access between now and November,” Ho said.

The decision is binding in states covered by the 10th Circuit, which also covers Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, plus those portions of the Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho.

In reaching the decision, the appeals court noted the “significant burden quantified by the 31,089 voters who had their registration applications cancelled or suspended” in Kansas. They said the interests of the secretary of state do “not justify the burden imposed on the right to vote.”

Kansas argued in court filings that it has a compelling interest in preventing voter fraud. It contended its proof-of-citizenship requirement is not a significant burden and protects the integrity of elections and the accuracy of voter rolls.

Critics countered that the documentary proof-of-citizenship law was “a disastrous experiment” that damaged the state’s voter rolls, disenfranchised tens of thousands and eroded confidence in the state’s elections.

While the court agreed “in the abstract” that Kansas has a legitimate interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters, the court in an 84-page ruling said it did not see any evidence that such an interest made it necessary to burden voters’ rights in this case.

The judges noted that the district court had found essentially no evidence that the integrity of the state’s electoral process had been threatened, that the registration of ineligible voters had caused voter rolls to be inaccurate, or that voter fraud had occurred.

It found that at most 67 noncitizens registered or attempted to register in Kansas in the last 19 years.

“Thus we are left with this incredibly slight evidence that Kansas’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters is under threat,” according to the ruling. “Indeed, even as to those 39 noncitizens who appear on the Kansas voter rolls, the district court found that ‘administrative anomalies’ could account for the presence of many — or perhaps even most — of them there.”

The judges also noted that the district court had found that even under the calculations of the state’s experts, the estimated number of suspended applications that belonged to noncitizens was “statistically indistinguishable from zero.”

“This law disenfranchised tens of thousands of Kansans, denying them the most fundamental right in our democracy,” Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, said in an written statement.

He called for current Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab to drop any appeals and “turn the page on Kris Kobach’s sorry legacy of voter suppression.”

Schwab, a Republican who supported the law as a legislator, said in a written statement that his office is reviewing the decision and will confer with the attorney general on how to move forward.

Kobach said he’s not surprised by the “clearly incorrect” ruling by the appeals court judges, based on their judicial philosophy. He said the judges disregarded the plain meaning of the voter registration law’s text, making the decision the “essence of judicial activism.” He urged Schwab to appeal.

“The Kansas law is crucial for protecting the integrity of our voter rolls and this decision — this deeply flawed decision — should not be allowed to stand,” Kobach said.

This one is a bit of a blast from the past when Kobach was still a rising star for Republicans and was leading a lot of national efforts towards restricting voting rights.

Again, the core problem with all these voter ID efforts by Republicans remains that they are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist by putting additional burdens on voters. In all of these cases so far we have yet to see any state, group, or the presidents "task force" produce any evidence to support the need for voter ID by establishing that voter fraud is an actual issue.

67 instances of non-citizens attempting to register, or registered, in 19 years isn't very many. Especially in a state where there appear to be roughly 1 million votes cast each election.

[cubby]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...izenship-proof



This one is a bit of a blast from the past when Kobach was still a rising star for Republicans and was leading a lot of national efforts towards restricting voting rights.

Again, the core problem with all these voter ID efforts by Republicans remains that they are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist by putting additional burdens on voters. In all of these cases so far we have yet to see any state, group, or the presidents "task force" produce any evidence to support the need for voter ID by establishing that voter fraud is an actual issue.

67 instances of non-citizens attempting to register, or registered, in 19 years isn't very many. Especially in a state where there appear to be roughly 1 million votes cast each election.

This is HUGE. Major victory in the fight against voter suppression. Even if SCOTUS wants to review it, they won't see it before Nov 2020.

[Ripster42]

Even if SCOTUS wants to review it, they won't see it before Nov 2020.

I don't know who's in charge of kansas, but couldn't one of the justices order an emergency stay on that decision?

[Freighter]

Seems stupid to not be allowed to require people to show proof that they can vote.

[Edge-]

Seems stupid to not be allowed to require people to show proof that they can vote.

A great many people don't have access to these documents readily available, and when these laws are put in place they rarely include any funding to expand access to these documents without additional cost.

The point being, if you read the court opinion, that there is no reason for this requirement to begin with as the state, and Kobach, provided no evidence of any actual voters fraud, and a statistically insignificant number of attempts to register to vote by people who were not citizens.

You know Trump's line "the cure can't be worse than the disease"? That's actually applicable here. The solution to the problem cannot be worse than the problem, and given that there is no problem to resolve, any resolution that would place a burden on voters is unreasonable.

[Ripster42]

Seems stupid to not be allowed to require people to show proof that they can vote.

It's because of another law, which is mentioned in the article, but not really explained. The NVRA (federal law, has supremacy) basically says what documents you can use to verify identity in the US. One of them is your social security card (can't remember if this is explicitly worded, or if it's derived). KS' law basically says that the SSC wasn't enough which the NVRA says is illegal.

Edit: Derived. Here's the text:

The voter registration application portion of an application for
a State motor vehicle driver's license--
(A) may not require any information that duplicates information
required in the driver's license portion of the form (other than a
second signature or other information necessary under subparagraph
(C));
(B) may require only the minimum amount of information necessary
to--
(i) prevent duplicate voter registrations; and
(ii) enable State election officials to assess the
eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter
registration and other parts of the election process;

The bolded is the bit. Your SS# (which is on your SSC) fulfills this requirement.

[Freighter]

A great many people don't have access to these documents readily available, and when these laws are put in place they rarely include any funding to expand access to these documents without additional cost.

The point being, if you read the court opinion, that there is no reason for this requirement to begin with as the state, and Kobach, provided no evidence of any actual voters fraud, and a statistically insignificant number of attempts to register to vote by people who were not citizens.

You know Trump's line "the cure can't be worse than the disease"? That's actually applicable here. The solution to the problem cannot be worse than the problem, and given that there is no problem to resolve, any resolution that would place a burden on voters is unreasonable.

Funny how we had more strict voter identification measures here for the election here than the US has, and that without people whining about voter suppression or discrimination. There is no reason why you can't enact stricter voter identification measures, beyond partisanship politics which makes it an issue to create a divide in politics.

[Machismo]

Funny how we had more strict voter identification measures here for the election here than the US has, and that without people whining about voter suppression or discrimination. There is no reason why you can't enact stricter voter identification measures, beyond partisanship politics which makes it an issue to create a divide in politics.

Maybe because you guys don't have as much voter suppression...

[Orange Joe]

Funny how we had more strict voter identification measures here for the election here than the US has, and that without people whining about voter suppression or discrimination. There is no reason why you can't enact stricter voter identification measures, beyond partisanship politics which makes it an issue to create a divide in politics.

Do you have anything written into your constitution about voters rights?

[Felya]

Seems stupid to not be allowed to require people to show proof that they can vote.

If your name does not match a voter registration, you can’t vote. You can’t make up names and if you try to vote as someone who already did, you’ll be talking to the cops. The idea of needing an ID when voting, is predicted on not understanding how voting actually works in US.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how we had more strict voter identification measures here for the election here than the US has, and that without people whining about voter suppression or discrimination. There is no reason why you can't enact stricter voter identification measures, beyond partisanship politics which makes it an issue to create a divide in politics.

Does your country have voter registration?

[cubby]

I don't know who's in charge of kansas, but couldn't one of the justices order an emergency stay on that decision?

It's possible - and of course SCOTUS could choose to do anything they want. There is also a previous ruling regarding this issue, sort of, regarding gerrymandering, wherein the court essentially said "it's none of our business". I know this isn't gerrymandering, but still, the argument is there to be pressed.

I'm just glad this came down from the 10th. The fact they upheld the stay on the Voter ID law is wonderful in and of itself though.

[Edge-]

Funny how we had more strict voter identification measures here for the election here than the US has, and that without people whining about voter suppression or discrimination.

Almost like it's a very different country, with different laws, and different histories when it comes to voting. Not every democracy or democratic republic is the same.

There is no reason why you can't enact stricter voter identification measures, beyond partisanship politics which makes it an issue to create a divide in politics.

If it came with adequate funding and staffing to allow people to freely and quickly get these documents, I think you'd have few problem. The issues arise because when Republicans pass these laws they don't do that. Hours for offices that provide these kinds of documents are usually extremely limited, only open during the week and for part of the day when most people are working (especially low-income individuals whom these laws are targeted at), and it places a financial burden to pay for some of these documents that violates laws regarding poll taxes.

If you come in with no understanding of the history of voting in the US, or the recent history of the Republican attempts to suppress voters that have been repeatedly ruled as violating peoples rights by state and federal courts, then you should ask about it rather than operate with a knowledge-deficit in the area.

I'm not gonna go talk about voting in South Korea, for example, because I don't know the first thing about your countries laws or history when it comes to voting.

[cubby]

Seems stupid to not be allowed to require people to show proof that they can vote.

You have to understand the myriad of issues surrounding voter ID laws in the United States to see how this is a win for voter rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how we had more strict voter identification measures here for the election here than the US has, and that without people whining about voter suppression or discrimination. There is no reason why you can't enact stricter voter identification measures, beyond partisanship politics which makes it an issue to create a divide in politics.

There are actually quite literally dozens of reasons why you can't enact stricter voter ID measures. You just don't know United States politics to know them. Essentially, and in one sentence, the GOP uses voter ID laws to suppress minority voters, which typically vote DNC.

Just as an example - two years ago the North Carolina GOP was found writing laws to require voter ID that they knew wouldn't be easy to obtain by democratic voters - they literally researched it, and based the law on the research.

South Korea probably doesn't have these kind of issues, which is why you don't see these problems arise in your country. Unfortunately, they are legion in the United States. So much in fact that the Resident said on live television that the GOP does better when fewer people vote.

[Felya]

You have to understand the myriad of issues surrounding voter ID laws in the United States to see how this is a win for voter rights.

I think that’s already going too far. If people understood what voting registration was, it would be obvious that ID serves no point.

Too many people think it’s a form of verification, like for drinking... or a form to maintain liability, like a loan... if people over 21 could only buy one pack of cigarettes a day, while everyone had to register to buy cigarettes at all... there would be no need for ID. People lying would be caught, because the pack they are buying is already sold or their made up name wouldn’t be on a list to buy them.

[arandomuser]

I dont mind voter ID, ive come around on the issue
the main 1 is, it mostly stops uninformed voters from voting, and uninformed voters carried donald trump, republicans were for voter ID when uninformed voters were mostly democrats. Its fairly easy to get an ID, if you have a drivers license or state ID, its literally just like that.. If people arent informed enough to care about voting enough to do those easy steeps they shouldn't be voting. And its like we think about the 2nd A even, you should be able to own a gun, BUT after you do a background check and waiting period, i agree even for voting.

[Felya]

I dont mind voter ID, ive come around on the issue
the main 1 is, it mostly stops uninformed voters from voting, and uninformed voters carried donald trump, republicans were for voter ID when uninformed voters were mostly democrats. Its fairly easy to get an ID, if you have a drivers liscence or state ID, its literally just like that.. If people arent informed enough to care about voting enough to do those easy steeps they shouldnt be voting. And its like we think about the 2nd A even, u should be able to own a gun, BUT after you do a background check and waiting period, i agree even for voting.

But, that doesn’t explain why we need ID, when we already have registration. I understand this is spiteful angst, but still... regardless of law or principle... What is the point of voter ID, when registration already happens? You don’t need to register to buy cigarettes, or alcohol, or get a loan, or see r rated movies... so...

[Stormspellz]

I dont mind voter ID, ive come around on the issue
the main 1 is, it mostly stops uninformed voters from voting, and uninformed voters carried donald trump, republicans were for voter ID when uninformed voters were mostly democrats. Its fairly easy to get an ID, if you have a drivers liscence or state ID, its literally just like that.. If people arent informed enough to care about voting enough to do those easy steeps they shouldnt be voting. And its like we think about the 2nd A even, u should be able to own a gun, BUT after you do a background check and waiting period, i agree even for voting.

nothing you said is accurate, republicans want "voter id laws" because every single one of them is not about simply having a proof of id, but the bills also make it harder for "undesirables" aka people who vote blue form getting these ids, you will see in the bills closing of DMVs that cater to heavy democrate/minority areas, prevent Sunday(typically church group) registration programs, attempts to prevent students from voting, ect. When the dems calls them on clean versions of voter id, payed for by the gov. Republicans block the bill as happened numerous times at state levels

[Edge-]

I dont mind voter ID, ive come around on the issue
the main 1 is, it mostly stops uninformed voters from voting, and uninformed voters carried donald trump, republicans were for voter ID when uninformed voters were mostly democrats. Its fairly easy to get an ID, if you have a drivers license or state ID, its literally just like that.. If people arent informed enough to care about voting enough to do those easy steeps they shouldn't be voting. And its like we think about the 2nd A even, you should be able to own a gun, BUT after you do a background check and waiting period, i agree even for voting.

So you don't mind voter suppression when you think it hurts the other team? That's not a great position.

Also, poll tests, which is functionally what you're arguing for, are also explicitly illegal.

[kaid]

This is HUGE. Major victory in the fight against voter suppression. Even if SCOTUS wants to review it, they won't see it before Nov 2020.

Given the daughter of the guy who came up with most of these schemes released all the hard drives of her dads work showing these things are insanely prejudicial by intent I am not shocked these are starting to go down in flames like this.

[cors8]

I dont mind voter ID, ive come around on the issue
the main 1 is, it mostly stops uninformed voters from voting, and uninformed voters carried donald trump, republicans were for voter ID when uninformed voters were mostly democrats. Its fairly easy to get an ID, if you have a drivers license or state ID, its literally just like that.. If people arent informed enough to care about voting enough to do those easy steeps they shouldn't be voting. And its like we think about the 2nd A even, you should be able to own a gun, BUT after you do a background check and waiting period, i agree even for voting.

How does voter ID actually make for a more "informed" electorate? You bring up guns but many registered gun owners have accidents or do dumb shit with their guns. Heck, Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face while hunting...