DiscussMormonism.com

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that voting is not a fundamental right. What's next for voters?

A split Kansas Supreme Court ruling last week issued in a lawsuit over a 2021 election law found that voting is not a fundamental right listed in the state Constitution's Bill of Rights.

The finding drew sharp criticism from three dissenting justices on the high court. The Associated Press looks at what the ruling might mean for Kansas residents and future elections.

WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
The ruling itself is wide-reaching, combining different lawsuits at various stages of litigation that challenge three different segments of a 2021 election law passed by the Kansas Legislature. It was a lawsuit challenging a ballot signature verification measure in which a majority of the high court found there is no right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

The measure requires election officials to match the signatures on advance mail ballots to a person’s voter registration record. The high court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of that lawsuit and instructed the lower court to consider whether the measure violates the equal protection rights of voters. But four of the court's seven justices rejected arguments that the measure violates voting rights under the state's Bill of Rights.

WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?
The decision was written by Justice Caleb Stegall, who is seen as the most conservative of the court’s seven justices, five of whom were appointed by Democratic governors.

Stegall dismissed the strongly-worded objections of the dissenting justices, saying there is not a “fundamental right to vote” in Section 2 of the Bill of Rights, as the groups had argued.

The MAGA desire to cancel out democracy and institute an authoritarian fascist government is strong.

So, if your signature doesn’t perfectly match your registration signature it can get tossed out? The crazy has spread.

- Doc

Moksha wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 04, 2024 8:50 am

The MAGA desire to cancel out democracy and institute an authoritarian fascist government is strong.

That's what happens when your world view is flooded with BS, ignorance, and irrational rage.

I read the opinion. The media (AP, I'm looking at you) did a terrible job of reporting.

Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution sets out the fundamental political right of Kansas citizens to vote. The argument that the Majority rejected is that there is some kind of fundamental right that transcends Section 5 in Section 1 one 2 of the Kansas Bill of Rights:

§ 1. Equal rights. All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

§ 2. Political power; privileges. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and are instituted for their equal protection and benefit. No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted by the legislature, which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the same body; and this power shall be exercised by no other tribunal or agency.

The opinion distinguishes between "natural" (i.e., God given) rights and political rights, citing case law. It describes the right to vote as a political right which is a part of the delegation of power from the people to the state government in the Constitution itself. Because the Constitution itself defines who has the right to vote, it would make no sense to say those provisions are somehow overriden by a natural right to vote.

Article 5, Section 1 defines who is a "qualified elector" under Kansas Law. An "elector" is a person who has the right to vote in an election. As the opinion sets out, the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 apply to make sure that all people receive equal protection under the law in terms of qualifying as electors. Article 5, Section 4 expressly gives the Legislature the power to require "proper proofs" that a person is a qualified elector.

The issue is whether a signature verification requirement violates the express section of the Kansas Constitution that sets out voting rights. In otherworlds, is signature verification a "proper proof" as allowed under the constitution? As a person whose state has been exclusively using mail in ballots for a number of years, I'm surprised this was even an issue. My county always verifies the signature on my ballot. If the examiner decides the signature on my ballot doesn't match the signature for my registration, they call, text, e-mail or phone (depending on the information I choose to provide) to notify me that my ballot has been rejected. Then I have an opportunity to go to the county and verify my signature in person. If I do, my ballot is counted. That's my protection against someone stealing my ballot out of my mailbox and using it to vote. I can also track my ballot on the county's website to verify that it has been received and counted.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 04, 2024 7:21 pm

The issue is whether a signature verification requirement violates the express section of the Kansas Constitution that sets out voting rights. In otherworlds, is signature verification a "proper proof" as allowed under the constitution? As a person whose state has been exclusively using mail in ballots for a number of years, I'm surprised this was even an issue. My county always verifies the signature on my ballot. If the examiner decides the signature on my ballot doesn't match the signature for my registration, they call, text, e-mail or phone (depending on the information I choose to provide) to notify me that my ballot has been rejected. Then I have an opportunity to go to the county and verify my signature in person. If I do, my ballot is counted. That's my protection against someone stealing my ballot out of my mailbox and using it to vote. I can also track my ballot on the county's website to verify that it has been received and counted.

I believe I live in the same state as Res Ipsa and it has not crossed my mind to question the wisdom of checking my signature. It is on the outside of envelope containing the actual vote so which way a questioned vote was going would not be known by anybody questioning the signature.

True, but isn't the idea that boxes of ballots from blue counties will suddenly be suspicious?

Some Schmo wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:40 pm

That's what happens when your world view is flooded with BS, ignorance, and irrational rage.

We have in a large part Fox and friends to thank for this.