Archive for Thursday, June 20, 2013

Editorial: Weak defense

June 20, 2013

Advertisement

It’s hard to share Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s public confidence that the Kansas voter registration law can withstand the legal challenges that caused the Arizona law to be thrown out in a 7-2 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kobach claims that, because he was aware of challenges to the Arizona law, he was careful to craft the Kansas law to avoid the same problems. Maybe he believes that, but when put up against the language of the Supreme Court decision, his reasoning seems seriously flawed.

The case Kobach makes sounds a little like President Bill Clinton’s famous evasion when he parsed his answer about his relationship with a White House intern by arguing that “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” The Supreme Court based its ruling on the federal Voting Rights Act, which requires all states to “accept and use” a federal voter registration form that asks applicants whether they are citizens but doesn’t require them to provide any proof of that.

Kobach contends that, unlike the Arizona law, Kansas conforms to the federal law because it “accepts” the federal form; that is, the state takes the form, but then it places it “in suspense” until the person trying to register provides proof of citizenship. If that proof is never provided, the registration is never completed. In what universe does that fulfill the requirement to “accept and use” the federal form? Just because the state takes a form and sticks it in a desk drawer doesn’t mean it is allowing people to use that form to register to vote.

That argument, even coming from a former law professor like Kobach, isn’t likely to pass muster with Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court. “Reading ‘accept’ merely to denote willing receipt seems out of place in the context of an official mandate to accept and use something for a given purpose,” Scalia wrote. His meaning seems clear enough.

A handful of other states with similar laws — Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee — are reviewing their laws in light of this week’s Supreme Court ruling. Kansas Sen. Anthony Hensley of Topeka has taken the initial step of asking Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt to issue a legal opinion on whether the state’s voter registration law still is valid. The America Civil Liberties Union, which fought against the Arizona voter registration law, also is looking at the Kansas law and considering its next steps — perhaps depending on what Schmidt determines.

The proof of citizenship provision in the Kansas voter registration has spurred considerable controversy in Kansas. Kobach and other supporters of the law claim it is necessary to prevent voter fraud, but many Kansans see the provision as an effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Although he has been unable to provide any proof of voter fraud, Kobach continues to say it does exist.

Now, despite clear legal evidence to the contrary, Kobach contends the Kansas law requiring proof of citizenship is constitutional. How much money is the state of Kansas willing to spend to try to help him win that argument if and when this question goes to court?

Comments

Patricia Davis 1 year, 10 months ago

Don't blame me. I didn't for this idiot or that baby attorney general Schmidt. All of the people who voted straight R got these idiots. All the people who voted for Schmidt in protest of Obamacare, got this infantile, a real judge would mop up off the floor, attorney general. Kobach wants to carry a gun on the job. He wants the power to prosecute and think he really will get that next session. What's it going to take to make Kansas angry about being used by these Koch suckers?

sciencegeek 1 year, 10 months ago

oxymoron--

the voters of Kansas would have to start to pay attention, not just believe the mega-lies put out by the Koch machine before elections. That would require effort; don't hold your breath.

kerryaltenbernd 1 year, 10 months ago

The right to vote is a precious thing that has been hard won over the years. How many men and women have given their lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to ensure that the current generation can exercise that right? The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 to remedy a hundred years of manipulation of power through the manipulation of who could and could not vote. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the provisions of that Act, to continue to insure that those who suffered to give us that right did not do so in vain. For the Secretary of State to so blithely pass off the strong rebuke the Supreme Court gave to his ideas as expressed in the Arizona law, shows his supreme arrogance, and his total disconnect from what the right to vote really means in this country of ours.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.