kansas’ Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Law: A Cautionary tale
Table of Contents
- 1. kansas’ Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Law: A Cautionary tale
- 2. Proof of Citizenship for Voting: A Recurring Debate
- 3. Legal Challenges and the Kansas Case
- 4. Could the Kansas Law Survive Today?
- 5. Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Requirements: A Resurrected Debate
- 6. Beyond Party Lines: The Broader Impact
— Scott Schwab,Kansas Secretary of State
Even Republicans like Scott Schwab,who once supported the law,now advise against such measures. Schwab, Kansas’s top elections official, believes the experience demonstrated the law unfairly disenfranchises eligible voters. Steven Fish, a Kansas warehouse worker, exemplifies the unintended consequences of such laws.Motivated to register to vote after the birth of his son, Fish discovered he lacked the necessary documentation to comply with the law.He highlights how the law unjustly impacted citizens like himself who posed no threat to election integrity. “The locks didn’t work.You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.”— Steven Fish, Kansas resident
Despite Kansas’ experience, other states like Arizona have enacted similar proof-of-citizenship requirements. The Kansas case serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of such policies: disenfranchising legitimate voters while failing to address the already rare occurrence of non-citizen voting.Proof of Citizenship for Voting: A Recurring Debate
Across the United States, the question of whether to require proof of citizenship for voting has resurfaced, sparking heated discussions and legal challenges. Following Kansas’s attempt to implement such a requirement, several states have explored similar measures, citing concerns about voter fraud and the potential for noncitizens to cast ballots illegally. In 2011, Kansas enacted a law requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering. However, this law faced significant opposition and was ultimately overturned by courts. The law limited voting in state and local elections, but not for federal races. Despite this limitation,critics argued that it created an unnecessary barrier to voting and disproportionately affected eligible citizens who lacked readily available proof of citizenship. The U.S.House of Representatives,led by Republicans,passed a bill in the summer requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections. With Republicans now controlling the Senate, similar legislation is expected to be introduced again. Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State recently revised the forms used by poll workers to challenge voter eligibility, requiring U.S.-born citizens to show their naturalization papers.This practice was challenged in court but allowed to proceed just before the recent election. In other states, including Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, voters approved symbolic amendments to their state constitutions emphasizing that only U.S. citizens can vote. While these changes have no practical effect on who is eligible, they highlight the ongoing debate surrounding voter eligibility and citizenship requirements. Supporters of these measures argue that they are necessary to safeguard the integrity of elections and prevent noncitizens from voting illegally. Representative Chip Roy, a Texas Republican and a key proponent of the congressional proposal requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections, stated, “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections.”Legal Challenges and the Kansas Case
The Kansas law faced significant legal challenges,with both a federal judge and a federal appeals court ruling that it violated a federal law that restricts states to collecting only the minimum information necessary to determine voter eligibility. The courts found that Kansas lacked sufficient evidence to justify the law, given the “scant” instances of noncitizen voter registration. They noted that the state’s own data indicated that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote between 1999 and 2012, an average of just three per year. The courts concluded that the law’s potential to disenfranchise eligible citizens outweighs the perceived threat of noncitizen voting. Kris Kobach, Kansas’s Secretary of State at the time and a prominent advocate for stricter immigration enforcement, strongly defended the law, arguing that the threat of noncitizen voting was significant. He maintains that the court rulings were incorrect and that technological advancements have made verifying citizenship easier.Could the Kansas Law Survive Today?
Whether a law similar to Kansas’s would be upheld today remains uncertain. While concerns about election integrity persist, courts have demonstrated a reluctance to impose burdensome requirements that could disenfranchise eligible voters. The issue is likely to continue to be a source of debate and legal challenges as states grapple with balancing the need for secure elections with ensuring access to the ballot for all eligible citizens.Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Requirements: A Resurrected Debate
The question of requiring proof of citizenship to vote is once again at the forefront of political discourse,fueled by a recent Supreme Court decision and calls from proponents of stricter voting laws. While a similar measure was struck down in Kansas a decade ago, the current political climate has revived this contentious issue. In 2013, Kansas implemented a law requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering. However,the law faced immediate legal challenges,culminating in the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case in 2020.But in August of this year,the Court split 5-4,allowing Arizona to continue enforcing a similar law for state and local elections despite ongoing litigation. This shift in the Supreme Court’s stance has emboldened proponents of proof-of-citizenship requirements.U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt,who served as Kansas attorney general during the legal battle against the state’s law,believes the current court makeup would likely result in a different outcome today.“If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different,” Schmidt said in an interview.
However, voting rights advocates are unconvinced, arguing that a legal challenge would still face significant obstacles. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who successfully fought the Kansas law, asserts that opponents now have a proven strategy for a courtroom victory.“We no the people we can call. We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted “a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.”
Beyond Party Lines: The Broader Impact
The initial impact of the Kansas requirement seemed to disproportionately affect unaffiliated and young voters.A 2013 analysis revealed that 57% of those blocked from registering were unaffiliated, and 40% were under 30. Though, the experiences of individuals like Ryan Fish, who joined the lawsuit against the Kansas law, highlight the far-reaching consequences of such measures. Fish,in his mid-30s at the time,was unable to register despite multiple attempts and the production of documentation. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal [immigrant] or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” said Fish. He was required to present his birth certificate while renewing his Kansas driver’s license. The clerk refused to accept a copy, leaving Fish unable to locate the original, which had been issued at an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Fish was not alone. Six of the nine individuals who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older, and three had presented citizenship documentation only to be denied registration nonetheless. The group included veterans, born in the United States, who were astonished to be barred from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, emphasizes that millions of Americans lack passports or readily accessible birth certificates, potentially disenfranchising a significant portion of the electorate.“It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life. It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country,” Azore said.
The text offers a detailed analysis of the proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting policy, highlighting its history, legal challenges, and ongoing debate.
Hear are some of the key takeaways:
**Kansas Case History:**
* In 2013, Kansas enacted a law demanding proof-of-citizenship for voter registration.
* The law affected 31,000 U.S. citizens (12% of first-time registrants) and was ultimately struck down by federal courts as an unconstitutional burden on voting rights.
**National Implications:**
* Despite Kansas’s experience, other states like Arizona have implemented similar requirements.
* The recent Supreme Court decision allowing Arizona too enforce its proof-of-citizenship law for state and local elections has invigorated the debate nationally.
**Arguments For and Against:**
* supporters argue that such measures are necessary to prevent non-citizen voting and enhance election integrity.
* Opponents argue that these laws disproportionately disenfranchise eligible citizens, notably those without easily accessible proof of citizenship, while failing to address the already rare occurrence of non-citizen voting.
**Future Prospects:**
* While the legal landscape surrounding proof-of-citizenship requirements remains uncertain, the issue is likely to persist as a point of political and legal contention.
* With a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, the likelihood of similar laws being upheld in the future has increased.
**Key Individuals:**
* Scott Schwab (current kansas Secretary of State) – formerly supported the law, now acknowledges its flaws.
* Steven Fish – Kansas resident, provides a personal account of how the law unfairly impacted him.
* Kris Kobach (former Kansas Secretary of State) – strong advocate for stricter immigration enforcement.
**the text presents a nuanced viewpoint on a complex and controversial issue, highlighting the need for a careful balance between election security and voter access.**
