Kansas Supreme Court finds Kansans have no ‘fundamental right’ to vote. What it means

Daily Item ^ | 5/31/24 | Chance Swaim and Jenna Barackman

[CFW]

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that voting is not a fundamental right protected by the Kansas Constitution.

The landmark decision on voting rights Friday is likely to weaken legal challenges to future voting restrictions in Kansas.

The majority opinion reversed a 2023 appeals court decision that recognized any restrictions on the fundamental right to vote would be subject to the highest legal bar for evaluation, or strict scrutiny.

Justice Caleb Stegall wrote for the majority, saying voting is instead a “political right” under the Kansas Constitution that has a lower bar for regulation than fundamental rights.

[snip]

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach and Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, the defendents, touted the rulings as a victory for election integrity.

The decision clears a path for lawmakers and officials to pass laws and regulations limiting advance voting, access to the polls and mail-in ballots.

[CFW]

The left does not want any rules or restrictions on voting such as verified signatures or photo identification. It inhibits their ability to cheat in elections.

[Enterprise]

"Kansas Supreme Court finds Kansans have no ‘fundamental right’ to vote."

The ruling did no such thing.

[Pajamajan]

bttt

[Gene Eric]

Kansas 2022

[Liz]

Justice Caleb Stegall wrote for the majority, saying voting is not defined as a “fundamental right;”
it is a “political right” under the Kansas Constitution (means it has a lower bar for regulation than fundamental rights).

Kansas AG Kris Kobach and Kansas Secy of State Scott Schwab, the defendants, touted the rulings as a victory for election integrity.

The decision clears a path for lawmakers and officials to pass laws and regulations limiting advance voting, access to the polls and mail-in ballots.

[Skywise]

I think the justice’ have got this one wrong. I agree it’s not an “unlimited” (fundamental) right (EG non-citizens/felons can lose the right, but that’s true of guns, too and I consider that a fundamental right) - but it’s not a “political” right either.

[PghBaldy]

Related, but on the Federal issues: there is no U.S. Constitutional “right” to vote for electors in Presidential elections (Bush v. Gore).

[TheWriterTX]

I concur.

It is a fundamental right outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Governments only have their “just powers” through the consent of the governed. The mechanism we utilize to exercise our consent is through voting.

It is a right reserved for the citizens.

[kabar]

Kobach is the man.

[from occupied ga]

The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law. That’s the realm of the Constitution.

[Truthsearcher]

I disagree, fundamental rights are rights that exist prior to the government. Governments exist to secure those fundamental rights. Whereas voting is something that only exists because its established by the government.

Voting is a right instituted to protect the fundamental rights of the people, but it is not in of itself a fundamental right.
Governments has always placed restriction on the right to vote, it used to be you had to be a man, had to own property, now you have to be 18, and in some states you cannot be a felon, must be a citizen. Whereas a fundamental right would face far less restrictions.

[kabar]

Facing far less restrictions is not necessarily a good thing. The. Dems are fighting Voter ID, proof of citizenship, signature verification, etc. They favor mail in ballots, drop boxes, ballot harvesting, and even non-citizen voting. They view any restrictions as voter suppression.

Kansas did the right thing.

[Eleutheria5]

It’s not like there were ever controversies surrounding Kansas and electoral fraud before.

[Rockingham]

In modern American law, the highest category of rights cannot be abridged unless the law or measure doing so passes the exacting strict scrutiny standard. Most all rights fall into categories that are protected by several lower standards of scrutiny. That is why it is hard for the government to carry out the death penalty but much easier to take away a drivers' license or seize a car, a bank account, or even a home.

In holding that the right to vote is subject to a lower standard of scrutiny than strict scrutiny, the court is no doubt correct. Significantly, the decision will permit rational measures based on administrative efficiency and protection against fraud as legally sound even if they can make it marginally harder to vote.

And by the way, damn the League of Women Voters for once again lining up with the Democrats in wanting to make vote fraud easier.

[Az Joe]

There is no US Constitutional right to vote

[Az Joe]

There is no US Constitutional right to vote

[Az Joe]

There is no US Constitutional right to vote

[Az Joe]

There is no US Constitutional right to vote

[Tunehead54]

4 am

[Rockingham]

True enough, but that only touches the surface of some complicated legal and factual issues of constitutional import.

The 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits federal and state governments from denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment further prohibits discrimination in voting based on race and other grounds, including sex. Other federal laws mandate access to voting in spite of disability or even moving from one area to another.

In practice, the result is to make changes in voting laws and procedures a legal and political minefield. Most legislators, prosecutors, and judges would rather chew glass than get blasted by the news media, the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, or appellate courts as infringing anyone's right to vote. The result is that our system of registration, voting, and vote counting is riddled with opportunities for fraud and manipulation based on expansive readings of constitutional rights.