It’s understandable that Secretary of State Kris Kobach would like to get rid of the list of about 31,000 would-be voters whose registrations are being held “in suspense” by his office, but the procedure and timing of his proposal to reduce that list aren’t acceptable.

Most of the registrations on the list are being held up because the registrants have failed to produce documents that prove they are U.S. citizens. Currently those people are allowed to provide that proof and complete their registrations up until the day before an election. Kobach now wants to give those would-be voters just 90 days after filing their registration to provide that proof and complete the registration process. After that, their registrations would be tossed out and they would have to start the process over again.

Four members of the Kansas Legislature’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations expressed their opposition this week to the policy change, but that committee can only comment on the change, not keep it from taking effect. Kobach’s office has scheduled a hearing on the change for Sept. 2 in Topeka. After that, regardless of what feedback the office receives, Kobach has the power to proceed with the change.

A representative of his office told the legislative committee that the 90-day limit is longer than what is enforced in two other states with similar proof-of-citizenship laws and would relieve county election officials of the burden of continued efforts to reach people, whom he asserted didn’t want to complete their registrations.

Setting an arbitrary time limit to produce citizenship proof is a poor way to determine whether someone wants to — or even is trying to — complete his or her registration. As Rep. Jim Ward, D-Wichita, pointed out, it may take longer than 90 days for some people to obtain an out-of-state birth certificate or other proof of citizenship. Even looking at how many contacts an election office has had with a would-be voter or how many letters have been returned as undeliverable would be a more valid indicator than a simple 90-day limit. Ward said he might accept a 90-day limit “if there was some criteria other than, ‘it’s convenient for us and we think this is fair.'”

Another key issue is the fact that the constitutionality of the Kansas proof-of-citizenship still is being disputed. Restrictive voting laws are under scrutiny in several other states, and an advisory committee of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission plans to begin hearings in January to look into whether Kansas voter laws are suppressing voter turnout. Until questions about the validity of the law are resolved, no registrations should be tossed out for failure to adhere to that law.

The 31,000 voter registrations being held in limbo certainly raise questions about a voter registration system that was sold to state legislators with the promise it would include a seamless system for verifying citizenship. Setting an arbitrary time limit to remove people from that list would reduce the list but not address basic defects in that system that are keeping qualified Kansas voters from exercising their constitutional right to cast a ballot.