Narrow decision says lower court failed to identify ‘fundamental right to vote’, drawing fiery dissent from three of seven justices

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16128511

In a bizarre mixed ruling combining several challenges to a 2021 election law, Kansas’s supreme court has ruled that its residents have no right to vote enshrined in the state’s constitution.

The opinion centering on a ballot signature-verification measure elicited fiery dissent from three of the court’s seven justices. But the majority held that the court failed to identify a “fundamental right to vote” within the state.

The measure in question requires election officials to match the signatures on advance mail ballots to a person’s voter registration record. The state supreme court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit that challenged that. The majority of justices on the state supreme court then rejected arguments from voting rights groups that the measure violates state constitutional voting rights.

…

Justice Eric Rosen, one of the three who dissented, wrote: “It staggers my imagination to conclude Kansas citizens have no fundamental right to vote under their state constitution.

“I cannot and will not condone this betrayal of our constitutional duty to safeguard the foundational rights of Kansans.”

  • psmgx@lemmy.world
    14·
    5 months ago

    The State constitution doesn’t have anything in there, but that doesn’t matter because the US Constitution does. It’s like how most state constitutions don’t need a free speech / first amendment clause, since it’s redundant.

    However even if overturned – and that is almost assured – it gums up voting this year, and may delay or derail 2024 voting, which is arguably the goal.

    • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
      5·
      5 months ago

      Even the US constitution had to be amended to even include voting rights at all. Until the 15th, which we all more popularly understand now to grant voting rights to racial minorities, was actually the first guarantee of voting rights for white men as well. Before that, the Supreme Court could have very well found the same result.

      I just do not understand how voting rights aren’t the very first thing you establish after the preamble, even if it’s for your dominant demographic in a shittier time period. It completely boggles the brain.

      • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
        1·
        5 months ago

        Because these people would gladly hurt some of their own if it means hurting the people they want to hurt.

        As long as minorities are suffering they don’t care.

        • intensely_human
          11·
          5 months ago

          Can you link to one of these people saying anything remotely like that, or is this one of this situations where you admit you made that up?

      • intensely_human
        11·
        5 months ago

        If we’re getting technical, white men still don’t have the right to vote. We are granted the privilege in return for our selective service registration.

        In other words, we are granted the privilege of voting after we have signed paperwork granting permanent consent for the government to use our bodies to fight wars.

  • intensely_human
    11·
    5 months ago

    Yeah constitutions don’t provide rights generally. They constrain the government from violating those rights. The rights exist naturally, before government. Government exists to protect them.