The strategy of the Left, which involves suing until they achieve their desired outcome, has once again been thwarted, this time in Kansas. The Kansas Supreme Court overturned a ruling from a lower court, delivering a well-deserved blow to Democratic elections lawyer Marc Elias and his group of partisan activists. They had attempted to challenge the safeguards in place for mail voting in the state. In their relentless pursuit of favorable legal battlegrounds, Elias and the supposedly nonpartisan League of Women Voters chose to file their lawsuit in Kansas state court instead of the Federal court.
This case posed a direct threat to the integrity of Kansas elections, as Elias aimed to eliminate all restrictions on ballot trafficking and the entire system of signature verification. The Left’s ideal scenario would allow partisan operatives to collect an unlimited number of mail ballots, with no means for the state to verify their validity. While many states permit someone other than the voter to return their mail ballot, this practice opens the door to potential abuse known as ballot trafficking. It involves individuals collecting mail ballots from multiple voters and submitting them to election officials.
Although close family members are typically allowed to return ballots, it is evident that there are inherent issues with strangers handling other people’s ballots. Alabama has completely banned this practice, but Kansas sought only to impose limitations. To put it mildly, Kansas’ restrictions are quite lenient. In Kansas, a voter can personally return up to ten ballots. This means that a quarterback could return not only their own ballot but also those of the entire starting offense.
Alternatively, one could return the ballots of their spouse, parents, in-laws, and grandparents, and still have room to spare. This stands in stark contrast to states like Arkansas and Florida, where individuals are limited to returning two ballots other than their own, or New Jersey, where the limit is three.
Elias requested the court to remove the generous provision and permit an individual to collect and return an unlimited number of ballots. He specifically urged the Kansas Supreme Court to establish unlimited ballot trafficking as a constitutional right. However, the court refused. Instead, it ruled that the Kansas Constitution solely prohibits the legislature from adding voter qualifications, not from determining how elections are conducted. Despite this, the Left persisted in trying to impose unlimited, unregulated ballot trafficking on a state that opposes it. Elias also sought to invalidate Kansas’ signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
Since mail-in voting occurs without election workers present, verifying the voter’s identity is challenging but crucial for election integrity. In Kansas, the voter’s signature is the only means to confirm that the individual who cast the ballot (or had it delivered by someone else) is the same person who requested it. While other states have started using driver’s license numbers, Kansas lacks additional security measures. Nevertheless, the Left deemed even this minor safeguard excessive. They argued that requiring a signature – a common practice in daily activities like using a credit card – violates the right to vote. The court, however, disagreed. The justices upheld the reasonable stance that Kansas has the authority to demand proof of identity from voters. Requiring a signature is a practical and widely accepted method to achieve this when the voter is not physically present.
This signifies a triumph for the principle of law, however, it does not mark the conclusion of the matter. The court has indeed remanded the case back to the lower court in order to determine whether Kansas’ procedure of allowing voters to rectify, or “cure,” ballots with absent or mismatched signatures adheres to the principles of equal protection and due process. According to Kansas law, election officials are obligated to make an effort to reach out to voters whose ballots fail signature verification, and voters are granted nearly two weeks after the election to address any issues. This system appears to adequately meet the requirements of constitutional due process, although it is unlikely that Elias will acknowledge or respect this fact.