In this January 2016 file photo, Rep. Jim Ward, D-Wichita, and Secretary of State Kris Kobach square off during a panel discussion before the Kansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the impact that the strict voting laws Kobach championed in 2011 are having on voting rights in Kansas.

Kansas’ strict voting laws sometimes act like a poll tax and also disproportionately discourage young voters, a civil rights panel alleges in a draft report that seeks a federal probe into Kansas voting laws.

A panel that advises the U.S. Civil Rights Commission is circulating a draft report that would ask that agency to call for a Justice Department review of Kansas’ strict voting rights laws to determine whether the state is in compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act and other laws.

“Kansas’ proof of citizenship and voter ID requirements under the (Secure and Fair Elections, or) SAFE Act are the strictest in the nation, and may impose a substantially higher burden than that which has been previously challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court,” the Kansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in its draft report. “Community groups, local elections officials, and individual citizens all reported struggling to comply with the requirements.”

The draft report came out one day before a Kansas Senate committee hears testimony on a bill that would expand the law even further by giving Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s office authority to hold “bifurcated” elections in which some voters would only be allowed to vote in federal elections, but not state or local elections, if they register to vote using a federal form that does not require proof of citizenship.

Story continues below.

Kobach said asking for a Justice Department review would be unnecessary because the law is already under review in federal court.

“That seems to be a bit redundant to me since the ACLU has already thrown every argument including the kitchen sink at the Kansas SAFE Act, so the legal questions are already being reviewed in federal court,” he said.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson is scheduled to hear oral arguments March 3 in a case seeking to declare the proof of citizenship law unconstitutional.

The advisory panel conducted hearings in January 2016 and heard testimony about the impact that the SAFE Act has had on voting rights and voter participation in Kansas. Kobach, who championed passage of that law in 2011, testified at those hearings and said he did not think the laws had had any negative impact on voter participation. But others said the law, and in particular the requirement that people show documentary proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register, had made it much more difficult for people to vote.

The draft report is being circulated to people who submitted testimony or who had expressed interest in being updated on the committee’s proceedings. The panel is now taking feedback and suggested changes before issuing its final report. The next meeting of the committee will be by teleconference on Wednesday, Feb. 22.

In its draft report, however, the advisory committee suggests a number of problems with the law and how it has been implemented since it took effect in 2013.

It notes, for example, that people seeking identification documents are supposed to be able to receive them for free from from state agencies. “However, in practice, a number of eligible citizens may be required to pay for their documents. Any such instances may effectively be compared to a poll tax, which is unconstitutional under both the 14th and 24th Amendments.”

It also suggests that young voters are disproportionately affected because it only applies to voters who first register in their county after the law took effect in 2013.

And it notes that there have been cases in which voters’ information has been lost as it is transferred between agencies such as the Division of Vehicles and county election offices, adding, “Such data loss has resulted in citizens facing requests to submit the same identification documents multiple times, creating confusion and deterring eventual voter participation.”

It also suggests that, “Improper or insufficient training of poll workers has resulted in eligible voters being turned away because the poll workers were unaware that the identification provided is in fact considered ‘acceptable’ under the SAFE Act requirements.”

In a telephone interview Monday, Kobach disputed those findings and pointed to a survey his office commissioned, which was submitted as evidence in the federal lawsuit, finding that 77 percent of those surveyed support the proof of citizenship law while only 14 percent opposed the requirement and 9 percent had no opinion.

“The other thing I would say about the report is it is very lopsided,” Kobach said. It includes testimony almost entirely from left-wing opponents of proof of citizenship, and I find that problematic when nearly 80 percent of Kansans support the proof of citizenship requirement in scientific surveys.”