The Kansas Supreme Court offered a mixed bag in a ruling Friday that combined several challenges to a 2021 election law, siding with state officials on one provision, reviving challenges to others and offering the possibility that at least one will be halted before this year’s general election.

But it was the ballot signature verification measure’s majority opinion — which stated there is no right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights — that drew fiery dissent from three of the court’s seven justices.

  • Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well the US Constitution does so it doesn’t really fucking matter, does it Kansas?

      • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 months ago

        States must have a constitution that guarantees a representative government. I’d love someone to take this to SCOTUS saying Kansas can’t have federal reprentation if they don’t guarantee the right to vote.

        • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          5 months ago

          For your consideration, here is the text of section 2 of the 14th amendment:

          Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

          A literal reading of this text, apart from the anachronism by which voters must be male and 21 (which should be overridden by the 19th amendment, which enfranchises women’s vote, and the fact that voting age today is 18) says that if your state doesn’t let its citizens vote and abide by the result, its electoral college votes won’t count either, and neither will its congressional delegation be seated.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Well now that you’ve said that out loud, I could see conservatives being all over finding reasons to disqualify representation from blue states. (By which I mean make up reasons that sound good to a base that doesn’t think good)

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                How did that remove anyone’s right to vote? If Obama again, would Republicans be right to challenge his eligibility? Or would you argue that that is denying the right to vote to people?

                Removing a legal candidate illegally isn’t removing someone’s right to vote? If the GOP party does choose Trump, and you block entire states from being able to vote that candidate. That’s LITERALLY removing people’s right to vote.

                If Obama

                Served two terms which is the legal maximum. Everyone understands we can’t have a third. If dems forced it through and he ran again (regardless of winning a third or not) You can’t be surprised when the GOP tries for a third for a candidate either.

                “trolling” Modlog report by @[email protected]

                Grow up dude. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s stance doesn’t make it trolling.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Removing a legal candidate illegally isn’t removing someone’s right to vote?

                  They challenged the constitutionality of his candidacy< they didn’t remove the right to vote. So no, people can still vote after that. Pretty straightforward.

                  Also, if the theoretical Obama candidacy was upheld by the court, would you argue that they illegally tried to remove him?

                  Served two terms which is the legal maximum.

                  It’s a constitutional restriction, just like someone who took place in an insurrection or rebellion can’t run. Again, basic part of the case here.

                  Grow up dude. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s stance doesn’t make it trolling.

                  Take your own advice and realize that just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn’t mean they were the one who reported you.

                  • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    “A prior draft of Section Three did include the words ‘president or vice president,’ those were stricken,” he said, adding that “they were stricken with the knowledge of the person who sponsored the section.” Instead, he said, Congress was focused on preventing former Confederates from serving as senators and representatives.

                    Source: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/does-the-14th-amendment-bar-donald-trump-from-running-for-president/

                    And the Supreme Court has stated otherwise.

                    just like someone who took place in an insurrection or rebellion can’t run

                    This is factually incorrect based on the law, it’s intention, and the supreme court. Forget the fact that Trump hasn’t been found guilty of insurrection or rebellion (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html ,https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-votes-to-acquit-trump-for-role-in-capitol-attack [note that this was in 2021, long before Trump running for this election]). So holding him as applicable to the 14th is incorrect for a number of reasons. You’re feelings on the matter and your insistence otherwise is irrelevant.


                    Take your own advice and realize that just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn’t mean they were the one who reported you.

                    Interesting… I’m pretty sure I called out the correct person. Unless you’re saying that you are indeed @[email protected]. Originally I put your username in, because it was in paste buffer and apparently the copy command didn’t take. I corrected it within 30 seconds.


                    And just so it’s clear. I wish both presidential nominees the worst. I have no dog or pony in either race. This country is fucked and I’m glad I have a second citizenship to leave the country when shit here finally goes tits up.

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Isn’t the requirement only that the government be “republican”? A republican government doesn’t necessarily have to be representative. It only needs to not be a monarchy.

          • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Isn’t the requirement only that the government be “republican”? A republican government doesn’t necessarily have to be representative. It only needs to not be a monarchy.

            That’s the requirement of the Guarantee Clause (article 4, section 4) of the constitution- in its time, it was about barring non-democracy states from statehood, it was a guarantee of protection of any state from foreign invasion, and protection of any state from internal coup or rebellion.

            But, if you look at section 2 of the 14th Amendment, it’s a banger: if the right to vote is denied to citizens qualified to vote, the state doing it will lose its federal representation (as in, it will not just lose its electoral college votes in federal elections, its congressmen will not be seated). The purpose for this section of this amendment was to prevent confederate states from denying the formerly-enslaved the right to vote, and it should certainly apply today if Red-State legislators try to use their power to strip their citizens of their ability to meaningfully vote

            • NateNate60@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Your comment about §2 of Amendment 14 doesn’t seem right. The text states that representation is reduced proportionally to the percentage of male citizens over 21 who are denied the right to vote.

              • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yes, that was the wording then, it was the qualification to vote (male, citizen, over 21). Since the adoption of the 19th Amendment (which happened after, and supercedes this text) that standard has included women and today you just need to be a citizen and over 18. The proportionality of loss of EC votes and congressional seating (these are apportioned on the same basis, after all) was about states like South Carolina and Mississippi, whose population of enslaved people exceeded that of white citizens- if these states didn’t respect the new citizenship and voting rights of most of their citizens, they’d lose more than half of their federal representation, and that in turn would cost them and their confederates influence in the resulting federal government.

                My prior comment, made in the context of a Kansas court declaring that voting is not a right according to the Kansas constitution, was intended to point out that if nobody has that right in Kansas, that may be well and fine in Kansas politics, but if Kansas conducts itself in that way it will cost them influence federally, and that sets the stage for another round of Voting Rights Acts that can be used to guarantee voting rights federally even if states don’t want to do it themselves.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      This was an interpretation of the Kansas state constitution, not the federal constitution.

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        A state Constitution can’t override the federal one. If the federal one says you have the right to vote, then you have the right to vote.