Posted on 06/02/2024 10:37:41 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyitem.com ...
Constitutional amendments affecting voting rights
The 15th Amendment gave African American men the right to vote in 1870. But many weren’t able to exercise this right. Some states used literacy tests and other barriers to make it harder to vote.
The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave American women the right to vote.
The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes. The tax had been used in some states to keep African Americans from voting in federal elections.
The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age for all elections to 18.
The Constitution implies that elections of some manner will take place, but they leave that manner up to the state legislatures.
The only group that has direct constitutional authority to vote are the Electors to the Electoral College.
Other amendments put boundaries on what the state legislatures can and cannot do, but the legislatures decide where, when, and how elections will be conducted in their states.
-PJ
True; however, just because something is not specifically enumerated in the bill of rights does not preclude it from being a right. Article X makes that clear.
Article X.
I can see your point. I hope you can see mine, even if we ultimately don’t agree.
The right to dictate the form and fashion of our government is a fundamental right. The mechanism we have chosen to exercise that right is through voting. It logically follows that voting is a right. You cannot separate the two without compromising the fundamental rights of an individual.
Government can only passively coerce or forcefully suppress the exercise of our rights. It cannot remove them; they are an inherent component of our humanity.
There is no US Constitutional right to vote
What power?
Vote by phone. Match up your SSN to the SSN database, vote then your ID is crossed off the list. Everyone’s SSN is their ID and you use two-factor authentication to log in.
That’s really all you need. It takes away mail in voting, is secure and there is an audit log. Best part, is all those “deceased” voters are eliminated from voting. And as we know from Chicago and other leftwing enclaves, there is more illegal voting than there are illegals voting.
On Tuesday, Mayor Michelle Wu, a Democrat, announced during a city council committee meeting centered on her 2025 fiscal budget plan to expand participatory budget voting to those ineligible to vote in normal elections.
Noting here that there is a difference between voting and electing. Electing pertains to selection of someone for office. Voting is more general, can pertain to ballot questions, for example. We don’t ‘elect’ a ballot question, but we vote for it.
:: Best part, is all those “deceased” voters are eliminated from voting. ::
Barak Obama was provided (and is using) the SS# of a dead man from Connecticut.
The point of the court is that the state is not under an obligation to ensure that there is no inconvenience associated with voting. Thus, things like mail-in voting and no need for ID are not rights.
Enshrining voting as a fundamental right would mean that courts can tell us what that means. The Kansas court got it right. Voting is primarily defined and regulated by the legislature.
>There is no US Constitutional right to vote<
It’s in there.
A well regulated Government , being necessary to the safety of a frightened populous, the right of the people to vote, shall not be infringed.
EC
“I think the justice’ have got this one wrong.”
Our Founding Fathers would not think that. They allowed only land holders to vote, and no women at all.
So, you quote the Constitution and thereby raise the issue, precisely who are “the people”?
Until they let the Voting Rights Act decide election rules for the Southern states.
Thankfully, that part signaling out the South was stricken by the Supreme Court in 2013.
****Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority of conservative, Republican-appointed justices, said the law’s provision that determines which states are covered is unconstitutional because it relies on 40-year-old data and does not account for racial progress and other changes in U.S. society.****
They should have just ruled making only certain states be held to this standard unconstitutional, full stop, period.
Bert, it was a bastardized version of the Second Amendment.
It was to emphasize the absurdity of the left’s argument - guns no right, voting absolute right.
EC
If Chris Kobach is happy with the ruling, I am happy with the ruling.
That's not true. Some states allowed both male and female voters without being landholders if they had a certain amount of financial holdings. Some states allowed blacks to vote as well. Later, the Democrats pushed through legislation in most of these states to remove the right to vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.