Why Voter Citizenship Laws Faced Challenges in Kansas

Why Voter Citizenship Laws Faced Challenges in Kansas

Kansas offers a compelling case study of how laws requiring proof of citizenship for voting can backfire, disenfranchising thousands of eligible voters while addressing a problem that evidence suggests is minimal.

Despite this, discussions around voter citizenship laws remain prominent, with several states revisiting similar policies. This article examines Kansas’s experience, highlighting its challenges and lessons for future legislation.

Kansas’s Proof-of-Citizenship Law: A Political Fiasco

In 2011, Kansas passed a law requiring individuals to provide proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, implemented in 2013.

The legislation, driven by concerns about illegal voting, resulted in over 31,000 U.S. citizens being blocked from registering—12% of new registrants at the time. This sparked significant controversy and led to legal challenges.

Federal courts ultimately declared the law unconstitutional, deeming it an undue burden on voting rights. Since 2018, the law has not been enforced, serving as a stark reminder of the risks associated with such policies.

The Human Cost of Proof-of-Citizenship Requirements

Steven Fish, a Kansas resident, became one of nine plaintiffs who challenged the law. Unable to register due to lacking an acceptable copy of his birth certificate, Fish described the law as a “lock” that failed to protect against nonexistent threats while excluding lawful voters. Many others faced similar barriers, with the law disproportionately affecting young, unaffiliated voters and even veterans.

Challenges in Implementing Proof-of-Citizenship Laws

Kansas’s attempt to enforce its proof-of-citizenship law revealed several systemic issues:

IssueImpact
DisenfranchisementOver 31,000 eligible voters were unable to register.
Administrative HurdlesCitizens struggled to locate or provide acceptable documents.
Minimal Evidence of FraudOnly 39 noncitizens were found to have registered between 1999 and 2012.
Legal BarriersFederal courts ruled the law unconstitutional due to insufficient evidence.

Other States Pursuing Citizenship Laws

Despite Kansas’s struggles, other states are advancing similar laws.

  • Arizona implemented a proof-of-citizenship requirement for state and local elections, although federal elections are exempt.
  • Ohio adjusted poll worker guidelines to require naturalization papers from non-U.S.-born voters.
  • Iowa, Missouri, and others amended state constitutions to specify that only U.S. citizens can vote.

Critics argue these measures are largely symbolic or redundant, as existing federal laws already prohibit noncitizens from voting.

Court Decisions and Lessons Learned

Federal courts struck down Kansas’s law due to insufficient evidence of widespread voter fraud. A review found that only three noncitizens per year, on average, registered to vote in Kansas from 1999 to 2012. This contrasted sharply with the thousands of lawful voters disenfranchised by the law.

Proponents, such as former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, argue that technological advancements could resolve verification issues. However, voting rights advocates remain skeptical, emphasizing the difficulty of implementing such laws without disenfranchising significant portions of the population.

Broader Implications for Voting Rights

Kansas’s experience illustrates the potential for proof-of-citizenship laws to disproportionately harm voters from various demographics, including veterans and those born on military bases or without easy access to documentation.

Critics highlight that millions of Americans lack passports or readily available birth certificates, making them vulnerable to exclusion under such laws.

Key Takeaways from Kansas’s Experience

  • Minimal Problem, Maximum Impact: Evidence of noncitizen voting remains rare, while the harm to eligible voters is substantial.
  • Lessons for Future Legislation: States considering similar measures must address administrative challenges to avoid widespread disenfranchisement.
  • Public Sentiment and Legal Precedent: Federal courts and voting rights advocates continue to resist restrictive voting laws, shaping the broader debate.

FAQs

1. Why did Kansas implement a proof-of-citizenship law?

Kansas aimed to prevent illegal voting by noncitizens, despite evidence showing the issue was minimal.

2. How many voters were affected by Kansas’s law?

Over 31,000 U.S. citizens were blocked from registering to vote.

3. What evidence of voter fraud was found in Kansas?

From 1999 to 2012, only 39 noncitizens were identified as having registered to vote.

4. Have other states implemented similar laws?

Yes, states like Arizona and Ohio have introduced proof-of-citizenship requirements, though with varying enforcement mechanisms.

5. What are the main criticisms of proof-of-citizenship laws?

Critics argue these laws disproportionately disenfranchise lawful voters, create administrative burdens, and address a problem that evidence suggests is exceedingly rare.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *