In a bold move typical of their fortitude in preserving the sanctity of the vote, Republicans are rallying around the concept of stringent voter verification to prevent illicit voting in the 2024 campaign. They seek to envision legislation that will mandate voters to provide evidence of their U.S. citizenship. Surprisingly, one Republican stronghold, Kansas, seems reluctant to echo this movement, a consequence of its past endeavors in this direction.
More than a decade ago, Kansas adopted a proof-of-citizenship prerequisite that led to considerable political turbulence. The law, implemented in 2013 after its approval by the state Legislature in 2011, blocked over 31,000 U.S. citizens from registering to vote. This accounted for a significant 12% of the total first-time voter registration applications. Following judicial intervention, the regulation has remained dormant since 2018.
This chain of events renders Kansas a strong narrative on the potential pitfalls of a narrowly focused electoral strategy. The blinkered pursuit of addressing an issue that is inherently sparse in occurrence may inadvertently disenfranchise a much larger number of lawful voters.
Despite initially endorsing the concept of this legislation, the serving Secretary of State for Kansas, Scott Schwab (Republican), urges both the federal and state governments to abstain from similar enactments. Schwab aligns his stance with the unsuccessful implementation of the law in Kansas a decade earlier.
Taking a deeper look into the Kansas saga narrates the tale of Steven Fish, a 45-year-old native. Fish, though understanding the intended purpose of the law, found himself unable to register as a voter because he couldn’t provide an acceptable copy of his birth certificate. He, along with eight other Kansas residents, decided to take legal action against the impediment.
Kansas’ story didn’t echo much beyond its boundaries. Regardless, Republicans in other regions pressed on with related legislation during the year. Arizona, in particular, implemented a similar rule, albeit only for state and local elections.
Parallel proceedings in the Republican-controlled U.S. House saw the passage of a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer. Plans are underway to revisit this agenda after the GOP’s triumph in the Senate elections. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state altered the form used to challenge voter qualifications, necessitating naturalization documents from those not born in the U.S.
Despite the backlash in Kansas, U.S. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, the primary sponsor of the congressional proposal, maintains the conviction that ensuring only American citizens vote in American elections isn’t a violation of the constitution.
The Kansas law faced opposition not only from the residents but also the federal judicial system. Both, a federal judge and a federal appeals court, deemed it an overstep of a law that restricts states to collecting only essential information for determining voter eligibility.
In their ruling, the courts expressed concerns about the lack of robust evidence to validate such a stringent requirement. They argued that the law, absurdly, disenfranchised hundreds of eligible citizens for every improperly registered noncitizen.
Despite this judicial setback, the question remained whether the Kansas law would withstand today. The U.S. Supreme Court, having refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020, conceded in August to a 5-4 split decision that allowed Arizona to enforce its law while awaiting a subsequent legal challenge.
Contrary to the disturbing premise of this case, the initial impacts of the Kansas law seemed to disproportionately affect politically uncommitted and younger voters. As of fall 2013, the majority (57%) of voters barred from registering were politically unaffiliated, and 40% were under the age of 30.
Interestingly, among the nine residents who sued Kansas over this law, the majority were over 35, three of whom satisfied the citizenship documentation criteria yet still faced rejection. Steven Fish, one of the plaintiffs, expresses alarm at the prospect of law-abiding citizens being hindered from exercising their right to vote.
The lawsuit included U.S. born veterans, which further underscored the flawed nature of the legislation. Naturally, it calls into question the validity of rules that effectively undermine citizens’ democratic rights while ostensibly aiming to safeguard the election process.