Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Citizenship proof to vote is unconstitutional absent viable fraud, appeals court says

Senate candidate Kris Kobach

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach Kobach said the decision is the "essence of judicial activism."

Kansas may not require people registering to vote to provide documents proving their citizenship, a federal appeals court has ruled, striking down one of the most prominent Republican efforts to prove assertions of widespread election cheating.

The law was enacted in 2013 at the behest of Kris Kobach, the polarizing GOP figure who was then the state's top elections official and went on to chair President Trump' s commission to investigate voter fraud, which disbanded after coming up nearly empty.

Wednesday's ruling could bolster the prospects for other lawsuits by progressive groups and the Democrats. They are challenging election laws in more than a dozen states, many of them 2020 battlegrounds, arguing many rules were designed by conservative legislators to suppress the votes of racial minorities, college students and other reliably Democratic voters on the pretext of outsmarting an army of fraudsters that doesn't actually exist.


"Kansas wasn't able to muster evidence that the law in question here was necessary to prevent voter fraud, and I think that broader principle could have reverberations beyond the specific context of this case in a wide range of disputes over voting access between now and November," said Dale Ho, the American Civil Liberties Union's top voting rights lawyer.

Top GOP officials in Kansas said they may ask the Supreme Court to reverse the decision, in which the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the statute violated the Constitution's equal protection guarantee and the federal law regulating voter registration.

In the past two decades, the court said, 67 noncitizens at most registered or tried to register in Kansas — concluding that "incredibly slight evidence" of misbehavior was "statistically indistinguishable from zero" and did not justify preventing more than 31,000 applicants from registering, disenfranchising them during the five years the law was being enforced. (It has been blocked since 2018 because of the litigation.)

The state's interest in preventing such minimal fraud, the three-judge panel unanimously concluded, does "not justify the burden imposed on the right to vote."

The Kansas law is unique in requiring people to show a physical document such as a birth certificate or passport when applying to register. The state argued that is not too much of a burden and would assure the integrity of the voter rolls.

Mississippi is the only other state requiring would-be voters to similarly prove their citizenship, and that law only applies to naturalized Americans. It is being challenged in a separate federal lawsuit.

Kobach derided the decision as the "essence of judicial activism" and urged an appeal by his successor as secretary of state, Scott Schwab. He and Attorney General Derek Schmidt, a fellow Republican, said they were considering doing so.

The Democratic governor, Laura Kelly, has no say in the matter but urged them to give up. "If we have a problem with voting in the state of Kansas and across the country, it is that not enough people exercise their right," she said in a statement. "So I think eliminating any barriers to voting is a good thing."

Kobach, who was upset by Kelly in a bid for governor in 2018, is now seeking the state's open Senate seat in a competitive Republican primary.

"Make no mistake — this is a huge victory," said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of "Election Meltdown," a sharp critique of the American electoral system.

The case produced "the most important voting trial of the 21st century so far because it was the chance for those like Kobach who claim that voter fraud is a major problem in the United States to prove that in a court of law under the rules of evidence, "The proof was woefully inadequate."


Read More

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The Momnibus Act was previously known as the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, but the word 'Black' has been removed from the title and appears only once across the latest package.

Emily Scherer for The 19th

The Word ‘Black’ Has Disappeared From a Set of Bills Aimed at Addressing Black Maternal Health

The word “Black” has been almost completely removed from a package of bills that have long been viewed as Congress’ main legislative vehicle to address the Black maternal health crisis, frustrating some advocates who feel Black women are being erased from the policy.

The key change this year is the title. The Momnibus Act — filed in mid-March — was called the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act in 2023; before that it was the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021 and the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2020. None of the previous packages, which were championed by Democrats, have been enacted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Never Intended To Be Just

U.S. President Donald Trump on May 22, 2026 in Suffern, New York.

(Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Trump Never Intended To Be Just

Let us set aside, for a moment, the fact that in suing the IRS, Donald Trump initiated a lawsuit that was meritless, frivolous, and a blatant conflict of interest…in his own words, “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” Let us further acknowledge, but look past the fact, that the settlement is filled with “illegal cookies” like his effort to exempt himself and his family members or family-controlled companies, from past or future IRS audits or any future obligations to ever pay federal taxes.

Please appreciate, but set aside for a moment, that this is the most corrupt administration in modern US history. Further, I would like to ignore the fact that this appears to be an effort to finance a private militia that has violently sought to undermine the US Government and the electoral capacity of the vote of the people of the United States of America.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash

The Fragile Promise of the Ballot

Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.

The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.

Keep ReadingShow less