Republicans are focusing heavily on allegations of illegal voting by noncitizens as a key aspect of their campaign for 2024, including plans to introduce legislation in the new Congress that would require voters to prove their U.S. citizenship. However, one state with a strong Republican majority, Kansas, seems hesitant to revisit this issue. This hesitation stems from the state’s previous experience with a citizenship proof law that became a significant political controversy.
Over ten years ago, Kansas enacted a voter proof-of-citizenship requirement, which ultimately proved to be a misstep in its execution. This legislation, passed in 2011 and put into effect in 2013, led to the disenfranchisement of over 31,000 eligible U.S. citizens who sought to register to vote. This represented around 12% of all first-time registrants in the state. Ultimately, federal courts found that the law imposed unconstitutional barriers to voting rights, and enforcement ceased in 2018.
Kansas serves as a critical example of how enforcing strict voting regulations based on concerns that are quite uncommon can lead to widespread disenfranchisement of lawful voters. The state’s Secretary of State, Scott Schwab, who previously supported the legislation, has since adopted a more cautious stance, indicating that the concept should best be left alone by both state and federal authorities. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” Schwab remarked, reflecting on the negative outcomes of the law.
Individuals like Steven Fish, a warehouse worker from eastern Kansas, resonate with the reasoning behind the law, likening it to a store owner installing locks for security. However, Fish himself faced registration issues in 2014 when he did not have the correct version of his birth certificate to vote. “The locks didn’t work,” he stated, emphasizing the unintentional injustices that resulted from the legislation.
Despite Kansas’ prior experience, Republican-majority states elsewhere seem to have ignored its lessons, aggressively pursuing similar proof-of-citizenship measures. Arizona has recently adopted such a regulation for local and state elections, while the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a corresponding bill over the summer. Additional changes, such as requiring naturalization documentation for non-native individuals to vote in Ohio, have also emerged.
Voter sentiment in several red states, including Iowa and South Carolina, has led to proposed amendments in state constitutions reinforcing that only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote. These revisions, while somewhat symbolic since registrants already confirm their citizenship, nevertheless highlight a growing trend to solidify these beliefs in law. U.S. Representative Chip Roy from Texas argues that ensuring only citizens vote is not unconstitutional, reinforcing the GOP stance.
Following court challenges against Kansas’ law, both a federal judge and a federal appeals court determined the legislation exceeded what was necessary for verifying voter eligibility. The courts highlighted the minimal evidence of irregular voter registrations by noncitizens, further emphasizing that the law resulted in significant disenfranchisement without a legitimate justification. Up until 2012, only 39 noncitizens were identified as having registered to vote, averaging about three per year.
Kris Kobach, a former Kansas Secretary of State who was instrumental in pushing for stringent immigration laws, continues to advocate for proof-of-citizenship requirements. He believes technological advancements have alleviated some of the challenges associated with establishing voter registration and asserts that a different legal landscape now could yield more favorable outcomes for similar laws.
While the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Kansas case in 2020, it has recently allowed Arizona’s law to remain in effect as its legality is challenged. Some legislators, citing potential shifts in the Supreme Court’s composition, are optimistic about pursuing new proof-of-citizenship rules. However, voting rights advocates are skeptical, believing they are now better prepared for legal disputes.
The impact of Kansas’ previous voting law fell disproportionately on young and politically unaffiliated individuals, though many affected were older. Fish, for instance, encountered obstacles when attempting to register due to birth certificate requirements, which only added to the frustration of those who were unjustly turned away.
Numerous individuals, including veterans born in the United States, faced similar issues during the registration process, leading to feelings of disbelief that their rights could be compromised. Advocates emphasize that a significant number of Americans lack the necessary documentation to affirm their citizenship, further complicating efforts to secure their voting rights.
As the landscape of U.S. voting laws evolves, voting rights advocates warn that revisiting proof-of-citizenship requirements could lead to widespread disenfranchisement, affecting numerous citizens across various demographics. They remain firmly committed to challenging such measures to protect the rights of all eligible voters.
