The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that voting is not a fundamental right protected by the Kansas Constitution.

The landmark decision on voting rights Friday is likely to weaken legal challenges to future voting restrictions in Kansas.

The majority opinion reversed a 2023 appeals court decision that recognized any restrictions on the fundamental right to vote would be subject to the highest legal bar for evaluation, or strict scrutiny.

Justice Caleb Stegall wrote for the majority, saying voting is instead a “political right” under the Kansas Constitution that has a lower bar for regulation than fundamental rights.

“But just because the right to vote is not protected in our Bill of Rights does not mean that constitutional voting guarantees are somehow weak or ineffective,” Stegall wrote. “Quite the contrary.”

Stegall wrote that for a voting law or regulation to be found unconstitutional, it must pass the “Butts test,” which means “the law must be shown to unreasonably burden the right to suffrage.” If voting were found to be a fundamental right, the burden would be on the government to show new voting laws or regulations are narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.

Three justices wrote dissenting opinions, arguing the majority opinion overturns longstanding case law and will have wide-ranging consequences for voting rights in Kansas.

The decision clears a path for lawmakers and officials to pass laws and regulations limiting advance voting, access to the polls and mail-in ballots.

Republican state legislatures across the country have pursued additional restrictions on mail-in, ballot collections and advance voting since former President Donald Trump repeatedly and falsely claimed the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab has maintained that Kansas had fair, secure elections in 2020.

The Kansas Legislature passed three such voting laws in 2021 that were challenged by the League of Women Voters, Loud Light and other civic groups, who claimed the laws violated the right to free speech, stifled the right to vote, and violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protections and due process.

One law would make it a felony to impersonate an election official. Another would add new signature matching requirements for absentee ballots. The court’s 96-page opinion ruled these laws did not inhibit free speech nor did they place additional qualifications for voters to meet. Both were sent back to lower courts.

A third law, which was upheld by the court, restricts the number of absentee ballots that could be delivered on the behalf of others to 10.

The Supreme Court opened the door for a lower court to block the state from enforcing the false representation of an election official law. The lower court originally decided against blocking it.

“Today, we hold the plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim that the false representation statute is constitutionally infirm,” Stegall wrote. “Therefore, the district court erred in denying their request for a temporary injunction. We reverse and remand this claim to the district court to consider the remaining temporary injunction factors.”

After Republicans overrode Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of the policy, the groups halted their voter registration efforts in 2021.

Martha Pint, the president of the League of Women Voters of Kansas who challenged the false representation law, said the ruling confirms their allegation the law is “likely unconstitutional.”

“For three years now, Kansas League of Women Voters volunteers have been forced to severely limit their assistance of voters due to this ambiguous and threatening law,” Pint said. “The League’s critical voter assistance work is not a crime, and we are confident this provision will be quickly blocked when the case returns to the district court.”

While the court did agree that signature verification was a “valid effort” by the Legislature to provide proof that a voter is valid, justices sent the case back to district court to determine whether the law complied with the constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. That clause prevents state governments from enacting discriminatory criminal laws and requires notice to be given to those the law affects.

Pint, a plaintiff, said she welcomed the Court’s decision to reverse the lower court’s dismissal of their signature verification law challenge, adding that they looked forward to making their case in district court.

The court allowed one law to stand that civic groups argued unfairly disenfranchised sick or disabled voters who rely on others to deliver their ballots to the polls. The law restricted the number of absentee ballots an individual could deliver on behalf of another voter to 10 ballots.

But the majority opinion issued by the Court asserted ballot collection and returns were not a form of political speech or free expression and it dismissed the claim that the law was “constitutionally infirm.”

“Restrictions on the number of advance ballots one person may deliver does not, in isolation, inhibit speech because delivering ballots is not speech or expressive conduct,” Stegall wrote in the majority opinion.

Pint said the decision on the ballot collecting law did “not provide the relief” they were looking for in fighting alleged voter disenfranchisement.

“Let’s be clear: this law is meant to target the rights of Kansans to make their voices heard,” Pint said. “The League will continue to empower and aid Kansas voters in whatever way we can.”

Blistering dissent

Justices Eric Rosen, Dan Biles, and Melissa Standridge agreed with the majority decision to overturn the lower court’s rulings but strongly disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the constitution.

They each wrote blistering dissents against the ruling that Kansans have no fundamental right to vote.

“Today the court majority strips Kansans of our founders’ ultimate promise that the majority will rule and that the government it empowers will answer to its calls,” Rosen wrote in a dissenting opinion. “It staggers my imagination to conclude Kansas citizens have no fundamental right to vote under their state constitution. Admission to the United States was predicated on a constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government. Over 160 years later, this court removed that guarantee. I cannot and will not condone this betrayal of our constitutional duty to safeguard the foundational rights of Kansans.”

Standridge called Stegall’s determination that voting is not a fundamental right “a troubling decision with far-reaching implications.”

She wrote that “the majority departs from this court’s long-standing precedent recognizing voting as a substantive right grounded in the essence of a republican form of government.”

Biles wrote that he “very much agree(s) with Rosen and Standridge and that “the Kansas Constitution explicitly sets forth — and absolutely protects — a citizen’s right to vote as the foundation of our democratic republic, so it is serious business when a government official in one of our 105 counties rejects an otherwise lawful ballot just by eyeballing the signature on the outside envelope.”

Justices Marla Luckert, Evelyn Wilson and Keynen Wall Jr., did not attach their names to the decision but would have each had to agree with Stegall to reach a majority opinion.

Recent Republican efforts on voting

Since 2020, Kansas Republicans have sought to change the state’s election systems to combat unfounded claims of election fraud nationwide and in the state.

This year, they did not override Kelly’s vetoes of two bills changing the state’s election systems.

One would have added a label on advance ballots warning voters it is illegal to deliver more than 10 ballots on behalf of other voters and would have recorded the deliverer’s personal information. It also would have enacted more signature requirements for those delivering ballots for someone else.

Republicans did not attempt to override that bill.

The other would have prevented government officials from accepting federal funding related to elections in an attempt to limit Democratic presidential administrations such as President Joe Biden’s from directly giving money to the state’s election administration practices. Those include activities like voter registration.

Republicans were unable to override Kelly’s veto of the federal funding bill, falling short by a few votes.

Kansas lawmakers this year also considered and then rejected a law that would have overhauled the state’s election system by banning electronic voting machines, remote ballot boxes and eliminating the three-day grace period for mail-in votes.