The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Kansas that sought to revive a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.
There were no dissents. There were no comments.
This won’t effect just Kansas. Pennsylvania requires a birth certificate when one applies for Driver’s license and at the same time one has the option to register to vote. Bet that is the next to go.
If we had high hopes on the Trump Supremes leading us out of the wilderness, think again:
The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request to salvage a Kansas law that required residents to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote, despite pleas from Kansas lawyers and almost 20 red states.
Kansas’s red-state allies used the case to mount a broader attack on a legal test that in their view gives judges too much power in election-security disputes. Former Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach (R.) championed the law and personally defended it in court against an ACLU lawsuit.
The Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Act required Kansans to produce documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson struck the SAFE Act down in 2018. Robinson said it conflicted with a federal law that requires state officials to use “the minimum amount of information necessary” to determine voter eligibility. She also found the SAFE Act unconstitutional, saying the burden it placed on voters outweighed the state’s interest in protecting elections.
A coalition of 18 red states seized on Robinson’s second finding to push for a bigger change in election law. Relying on two Supreme Court cases from the 1980s and 1990s, federal courts usually compare benefits against burdens when reviewing voting rules. In a legal brief to the justices, the red states argued that approach isn’t objective and leads to inconsistent results. They urged the Court to hear the Kansas case and use it to jettison the balancing test for election laws.
More at Free Beacon
Other than that all is well in the swamp.