Just days after the general election, Kansas is back in court defending its requirement that Kansans provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and its plan to circumvent federal laws by conducting two-tiered election.

In the meantime, more than 20,000 Kansas voter registrations are being held “in suspense” at the Kansas Secretary of State’s office because they are incomplete — most of them because they lack citizenship documentation. Regardless of how the legal cases are settled, the state must address the problems that have left those would-be voters in limbo.

Kansans currently can register to vote using either a state form or a federal form, but Secretary of State Kris Kobach has determined that because the federal form doesn’t require citizenship proof, voters who use it have not complied with state law and can vote in federal, but not state and local elections. Kobach asked the courts to force the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to add a citizenship requirement to federal voter registration forms used in Kansas, but, on Friday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down that request. Kobach has said his goal is to fight voter fraud

Only a small number of Kansas voters have registered with the federal form, but the ruling could have a broader impact because it opens the door to another case, in Shawnee County, that could be the beginning of the end for the Kansas proof of citizenship law. That case challenges the legality of a dual election system — one for those registering with the federal form and one for those registering with the state form. If the dual election system is thrown out, all voters could simply bypass the state’s proof of citizenship requirement by registering with the federal form, which requires only that voters sign a statement confirming they are citizens.

It’s uncertain at this point whether the state’s system of dual elections will stand up to legal scrutiny, but, in case it does, Kansas officials should be looking now at ways to streamline the state’s voter registration system to avoid the kind of “in suspense” backlog that currently exists. A major problem with the system is a breakdown in communication between the Department of Revenue, which operates state drivers license offices, and the secretary of state’s office. When legislators approved the proof of citizenship law, they were promised that it would be an easy matter for Kansans to present citizenship documents and register to vote when they obtained a drivers license. The idea was that those documents would be transferred automatically to the Secretary of State to complete the voter’s registration. However, that hasn’t happened. First, there were problems with the computer system. Then there was the Department of Revenue’s decision to quit collecting documentation about citizenship or legal residency as part of the drivers license process.

Kobach maintains that the proof-of-citizenship law is important to reduce the potential for voter fraud in Kansas. Ensuring the integrity of Kansas elections is important, but this system is not what legislators were promised. If the state’s proof-of-citizenship law is allowed to stand, the state has a responsibility to provide an easier avenue to meet that requirement. Acquiring a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship can be inconvenient and expensive for some would-be voters. The least the state can do is make sure people who meet that requirement don’t face additional registration obstacles.