Narrow decision says lower court failed to identify ‘fundamental right to vote’, drawing fiery dissent from three of seven justices

In a bizarre mixed ruling combining several challenges to a 2021 election law, Kansas’s supreme court has ruled that its residents have no right to vote enshrined in the state’s constitution.

The opinion centering on a ballot signature-verification measure elicited fiery dissent from three of the court’s seven justices. But the majority held that the court failed to identify a “fundamental right to vote” within the state.

The measure in question requires election officials to match the signatures on advance mail ballots to a person’s voter registration record. The state supreme court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit that challenged that. The majority of justices on the state supreme court then rejected arguments from voting rights groups that the measure violates state constitutional voting rights.

…

Justice Eric Rosen, one of the three who dissented, wrote: “It staggers my imagination to conclude Kansas citizens have no fundamental right to vote under their state constitution.

“I cannot and will not condone this betrayal of our constitutional duty to safeguard the foundational rights of Kansans.”

  • @[email protected]English
    2•26 days ago

    While it looks like I pulled the wrong sentence out of the section by forgetting electors was for the electoral college, there are a couple things to add.

    The US constitution does include the right to vote and the state constitution builds upon that. The state level clause about exclusions is only necessary if the right to vote exists in the first place. So saying the state constitution doesn’t repeat a right from the US constitution is stupid on its face.

    Second, the nitpicking sbout how to verify someone would still be an issue even if voting was explicitly stated as a right in the state constitution since it is a limitation on that right like age.

    • sylver_dragonEnglish
      2•26 days ago

      The US constitution does include the right to vote

      Kind of, but also kind of not. I replied to another commenter on that, I’ll point you there.

      The state level clause about exclusions is only necessary if the right to vote exists in the first place.

      I agree that, and event directly stated in my previous post, exactly that:

      there seems to be an assumption implicit in this that people have a right to vote

      Unfortunately, an implicit assumption is not the same as an explicitly enumerated right. It’s a fine distinction, but can be a big pain in the arse. In theory, US Citizens have a lot of unenumerated rights, via the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. However, as it’s left open to interpretation, it ends up amounting to almost nothing.