The Kansas Supreme Court's majority has held that there is no state constitutional right to vote in the state.

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.

  • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
    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.comEnglish
      12·
      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.