Republicans, nationally advocating for stricter voter identification laws, are pushing for proof-of-citizenship requirements in upcoming legislation, citing concerns about noncitizen voting. However, Kansas, a state with a Republican supermajority, provides a stark example of how such policies can backfire, having previously implemented and ultimately repealed a similar law.
Kansas's attempt at mandating proof of citizenship for voter registration, initiated in 2011 and implemented by 2013, resulted in the disenfranchisement of over 31,000 eligible U.S. citizens. This amounted to 12% of all new voter registration attempts within the state. Subsequently, federal courts deemed the law unconstitutional, citing it as an unnecessary burden on voting rights. The law has not been enforced since 2018.
The state's experience underscores the risk of implementing such measures. Although advocates claim to be addressing the issue of illegal noncitizen voting, which is statistically rare, strict laws often disenfranchise many more legal citizens. Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican who formerly supported the concept as a legislator, now advises against such measures, noting that the state's previous attempt was unsuccessful.
One Kansas resident, Steven Fish, who joined a lawsuit against the state, described how he, like many others, was unable to register to vote due to the strict requirements. Despite having been born in the U.S., he could not produce a readily acceptable copy of his birth certificate. His experience highlights a frequent concern about these laws: many citizens may struggle to easily obtain proof-of-citizenship documents.
Despite the failure of the Kansas law, proof-of-citizenship requirements are gaining traction in other states and at the federal level. Arizona implemented a similar requirement for state and local elections, and the U.S. House has passed similar legislation, with plans to revisit it after the GOP gained control of the Senate. Additionally, several states have passed constitutional amendments specifying only U.S. citizens can vote, despite the fact it's already a federal requirement.
The courts ultimately rejected the Kansas law, ruling that the burden imposed on voters was disproportionate to the problem, especially given that federal laws limit states to collecting minimal information for voter eligibility. While the law aimed to prevent a small number of noncitizens from voting, the evidence suggested a yearly average of only three such cases.
However, proponents, including former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, believe the courts erred in their decision. They argue that technological advancements could make it easier to verify citizenship. Despite this, voting rights advocates contend that these laws are inherently problematic and would lead to further legal challenges.
The initial burden of the Kansas law fell heavily on unaffiliated and younger voters, although several older, native-born citizens were also affected. Many were unable to produce required documents, like birth certificates, which are not always readily available. Experts stress that a significant portion of the population has limited access to such documents, leading to widespread disenfranchisement. They remain skeptical that any technological fixes can overcome these hurdles.
