The Kansas Supreme Court offered a mixed bag in a Friday ruling that combined several challenges to a 2021 election law, siding with state officials on one provision, reviving challenges to others and offering the possibility that at least one be stopped before this year’s general election. .
But it was the majority opinion on the ballot signature verification measure, which affirmed that there is no right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights, that drew a strong dissent from three of the seven justices. court.
The measure requires election officials to match early mail-in ballot signatures with a person’s voter registration record. The state Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s dismissal of that lawsuit, but the majority rejected arguments by voting rights groups that the measure violates the state’s constitutional voting rights.
KANSAS GOVERNMENT. KELLY TO CALL SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE SESSION ON TAX CUTS
In fact, Justice Caleb Stegall, writing for the majority, said the dissenting justices wrongly accused the majority of ignoring past precedent, holding that the court has failed to identify a “fundamental right to vote” within the state constitution.
“It’s just not there,” Stegall wrote.
Justice Eric Rosen, one of three who dissented, responded: “I am shocked to conclude that Kansans have no fundamental right to vote under their state’s constitution.”
“I cannot and will not tolerate this betrayal of our constitutional duty to safeguard the fundamental rights of Kansans,” Rosen added.
Instead, the high court unanimously sided with those challenging a different provision that makes it a crime for someone to give the appearance of being an election official. Voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters of Kansas and the nonprofit Loud Light, argued that the measure suppresses free speech and their ability to register voters, as some might mistakenly assume that volunteers are workers. elections, which puts them at risk of criminal prosecution.
A Shawnee County District Court judge had previously rejected the groups’ request for an emergency injunction, saying impersonation of a public official is not protected speech.
Former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach answers a moderator’s questions during a Kansas Chamber of Commerce event at the Embassy Suites by Hilton on Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2022, in Olathe. (Kansas City Star via Getty Images)
But the high court criticized the new law, noting that it does not include any requirement that prosecutors prove a volunteer voter registrar’s intent to misrepresent or deceive people into believing they are election officials, and thus “criminalizes speech.” honest” when “occasional misunderstandings are likely to occur,” Stegall wrote in the majority opinion.
“As such, it drags protected speech into its web,” Stegall said.
Because the lawsuit over the constitutionality of the false impersonation law is likely to succeed, the state Supreme Court ordered the lower court to reconsider issuing an emergency injunction against it.
“For three years now, League of Women Voters of Kansas volunteers have been forced to severely limit their voter assistance because of this ambiguous and threatening law,” said Martha Pint, chapter president. “The League’s critical voter assistance work is not a crime, and we are confident that this provision will be quickly blocked when the case returns to district court.”
Loud Light CEO Davis Hammet said he hopes the lower court “will stop the irreparable harm caused daily by the law and allow us to resume voter registration before the general election.”
Neither Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab nor state Attorney General Kris Kobach responded to requests for comment on that part of the high court ruling.
Instead, in a joint statement, Schwab and Kobach focus on the high court’s language bolstering the signature verification law and its defense of a provision that says individuals cannot collect more than 10 ballots in advance to submit to election officials.
“This ruling allows us to preserve reasonable election security laws in Kansas,” Schwab said.
Supporters have argued that restricting vote harvesting combats “ballot harvesting” and limits voter fraud. The GOP-led Legislature passed it over Kansas Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto. Critics have said it is a Republican reaction to baseless claims that the 2020 election was invalid, leading to a wave of misinformation and voter suppression laws across the country.
Last year, the Kansas Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit challenging the limitation on ballot collection and signature verification, saying both harm the right to vote. But the high court upheld the limit on ballot harvesting, saying that “voters have numerous avenues available to submit their ballots” and that ballot harvesting does not fall within the parameters of free speech.
Kobach defended the majority opinion as “well-reasoned” and confirms that the Legislature has the constitutional authority to present evidence “that guarantees that voters are who they say they are.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“And that’s exactly what Kansas’s signature verification requirement is,” Kobach said.
