On Friday, the Kansas Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit challenging provisions of the 2021 voting law. Opponents say it is unconstitutional and restricts voting rights.
The lawsuit was filed in 2021 by Loudlight, the Kansas Women’s Voters League, the Topeka Independent Living Resource Center, and the Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice.
They advocate legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that limits the number of advance mail-in ballots an individual can collect and requires election officials to match signatures on advance ballots with an individual’s voter registration record. I objected to the terms.
Kansas Republicans Push Crackdown on Ballot Collection
Kansas Attorney General Chris Kovac said Friday that he will appeal the ruling.
Proponents of the law say that restricting individuals from collecting and returning more than 10 advance ballots for each election will reduce “ballot collection” and limit voter fraud. claimed. Kansas Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the bill, but lawmakers overturned her veto.
Friday’s unanimous opinion, written by Justice Stephen Hill, said two provisions undermined voting rights.
“Our admission to the state was by free election, so the Kansas Constitution preserves the right to vote,” writes Hill. “You have to be very careful when trying to restrict or violate these rights. Votes mattered then. Votes matter now.”
The court remanded the case to Shawnee County District Judge Teresa Watson. Judge Teresa Watson initially dismissed her case in April 2022 after finding the limitation reasonable. Judgments do not invalidate the law. However, Watson must consider the case using the highest standard of legal review: “rigorous scrutiny.”
Kobach called the ruling “the most radical electoral law decision in the country.” He said the signature verification requirement could prevent people from having their votes stolen. He did not mention any clause restricting ballot collection.
The Kansas Court of Appeals has reopened a lawsuit challenging the state’s rules limiting deposits for mail ballots.
“Clearly wrong,” Kobach said in a statement. “This decision runs counter to what the U.S. Supreme Court has said and what every state Supreme Court has said on the issue.”
Loud Light executive director Davis Hammet said the ruling didn’t address whether the law was constitutional, but said it was still a win for voters.
“We made it clear that the right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right, and said that when election laws are challenged, the courts apply the highest level of scrutiny to those laws,” Hammett said.
Hammett said the ruling was particularly significant in the aftermath of unsubstantiated allegations that the 2020 elections were not valid, which sent a wave of misinformation and voter suppression laws across the country.
“What the court said here is that[members]can’t just limit their voting rights,” he said. We have to show that we don’t just stop people from voting or make them count.”
Jacqueline Wrightcap, co-chair of the Kansas League of Women Voters, said the ruling supports many of the arguments voters have been making since 2021.
“I think the judge has some good points in saying that voting is a fundamental right and that the previous case was kicked out of the district court,” said Lightcap. “I’m so excited to have the chance to hear it again.”
Kansas legislators struggle to stop state’s ‘wake-up’ ESG investment
Secretary of State Scott Schwab said his office was reviewing the decision, which “appears to be a substantive change to the judicial standards for reviewing state election laws.”
Kansas House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican, called the decision “shocking” and said it would jeopardize all current electoral integrity laws.
“I am confident that Attorney General Kobach will swiftly appeal this terrible decision and that Republicans in the House will support his efforts in every way possible,” Hawkins said.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The Kansas Supreme Court heard a debate last month about another section of the law that criminalizes impersonating an elections official. Opponents said the provision would make it difficult to conduct voter registration campaigns.
