Kansas’s proof-of-citizenship voting law is being struck down because federal courts determined it violates the National Voter Registration Act—the federal “motor-voter” law enacted in 1993—and violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. A federal judge ruled the law unconstitutional in 2018, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in 2020.
The core issue is that the law blocked or suspended 31,089 eligible voters from registering to vote, while evidence shows at most 39 noncitizens registered over a 19-year period—what the appellate court called “incredibly slight evidence” for such sweeping restrictions. This article explains why Kansas’s Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Act failed legal scrutiny, what it cost the state, and how Kansas is now trying to circumvent the court rulings through a constitutional amendment vote scheduled for November 2026. The legal battle over this law reveals a fundamental tension in voting policy: the desire to prevent fraud versus the constitutional obligation to allow eligible citizens to register without unreasonable barriers. Understanding why federal courts rejected Kansas’s approach matters because eight other states have passed similar proof-of-citizenship laws since 2024, following Kansas’s example and potentially facing the same legal challenges.
Table of Contents
- How Did Kansas’s Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Law Work?
- What Legal Violations Did the Courts Find?
- What Was the Real-World Impact on Kansas Voters?
- Why Did Kansas Spend $1.9 Million Defending the Law?
- Why Is Kansas Trying to Add This to the State Constitution?
- Are Other States Following Kansas’s Model?
- What Does This Mean for Voting Rights Going Forward?
- Conclusion
How Did Kansas’s Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Law Work?
In 2013, kansas enacted the Secure and Fair Elections Act, which required voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The law accepted documents like a passport, driver’s license, or birth certificate as proof. Before the SAFE Act, Kansas allowed people to register using an affidavit under penalty of perjury, without requiring physical documentation—following the federal motor-voter law’s standard. The SAFE Act changed this by making proof-of-citizenship mandatory statewide, effectively creating a higher barrier than federal law allowed. The law impacted both new voter registrations and suspensions.
Between 2013 and the time the courts struck it down, Kansas officials suspended or blocked tens of thousands of people from voting. Many of these voters were U.S. citizens—naturalized citizens, Native Americans, and people born in the United States who lacked documents readily available to prove it. For example, a naturalized citizen who was naturalized decades ago might not have kept their naturalization papers, and requesting copies costs money and takes time. The law created a catch-22: you had to prove citizenship to register, but many eligible citizens couldn’t produce documentation quickly enough to meet registration deadlines.
What Legal Violations Did the Courts Find?
The National Voter Registration Act, passed in 1993, establishes minimum federal standards for voter registration. one key requirement is that states must accept affidavits under penalty of perjury as sufficient evidence of citizenship for registration purposes. Kansas’s demand for documentary proof violated this federal standard by imposing a stricter requirement than federal law allows. Federal judges emphasized that Congress deliberately set a lower bar nationally to prevent states from erecting obstacles to voter registration.
The courts also found that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The constitutional concern was that the law applied unequally: it burdened citizens who lacked documentary proof (often elderly people, poor people, immigrants, and Native Americans) while creating no significant obstacle to people with readily available documentation. When a law affects different groups unequally and is justified by minimal evidence of actual fraud—just 39 noncitizens over 19 years—it raises constitutional red flags. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2020 decision emphasized that blocking 31,089 eligible voters to prevent 39 fraudulent registrations was a severe constitutional mismatch.
What Was the Real-World Impact on Kansas Voters?
The numbers tell the story of who was harmed. Over the period examined by the courts, Kansas blocked or suspended 31,089 eligible voters under the SAFE Act—American citizens who had a constitutional right to vote but couldn’t because they couldn’t produce citizenship documentation on demand. Some were born in other states and didn’t have their birth certificates handy. Others were naturalized citizens who couldn’t quickly access naturalization papers.
Many were elderly voters who had registered decades ago and suddenly faced suspension because documentation standards changed. By contrast, the actual number of noncitizens who registered anyway was at most 39 over 19 years. The appellate court found this disparity so stark that it called the evidence of fraud “incredibly slight.” To put this in perspective: approximately 0.0012 noncitizens per year registered in Kansas during this period, while roughly 1,634 eligible voters per year were blocked or suspended. The law was like installing a roadblock that stops 1,600 legitimate travelers to prevent 1 person from sneaking through. Kansas had to pay $1.9 million in attorneys’ fees to the organizations that sued, including the League of Women Voters of Kansas.
Why Did Kansas Spend $1.9 Million Defending the Law?
When organizations like the League of Women Voters challenged the SAFE Act in court, they won—twice. The federal judge ruled against Kansas in 2018, and the 10th Circuit upheld that ruling in 2020. Because Kansas lost both cases, it was ordered to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, totaling $1.9 million.
This cost reflects years of litigation, expert witnesses, and legal arguments spanning federal district court and federal appeals court. The $1.9 million in attorney fees signals something important: Kansas’s legal theory for defending the law was weak enough that courts imposed fee sanctions. Courts typically award attorney fees only when a party’s legal position was unreasonable or the party refused to settle a case with obvious merit. The fact that Kansas paid this substantial penalty underscores that the courts viewed the legal justification for blocking 31,089 voters to prevent 39 fraudulent registrations as clearly wrong, not as a close legal question.
Why Is Kansas Trying to Add This to the State Constitution?
Rather than accept defeat, Kansas is pursuing an end-run around the federal court rulings: a state constitutional amendment that would add citizenship requirements directly to the Kansas Constitution. If voters approve this amendment in November 2026, Kansas officials hope it will supersede federal court decisions that struck down the SAFE Act. House Concurrent Resolution 5004 passed the Kansas House 90-28 on February 5, 2026, and the Kansas Senate passed it 37-3 on March 25, 2026—meaning voters will decide in November. However, this strategy faces a major legal hurdle: the U.S.
Constitution trumps state constitutions. A state constitutional amendment that violates federal law and the federal constitution is not enforceable. Even if Kansas voters approve this amendment, federal courts would likely strike it down using the same reasoning they applied to the SAFE Act. The amendment strategy amounts to defiance of the courts rather than genuine legal remedy. Yet it serves a political purpose: it allows Kansas officials to pursue voter ID restrictions with the backing of a popular vote, shifting the political pressure to the federal courts.
Are Other States Following Kansas’s Model?
Kansas is not alone in this approach. Eight states passed proof-of-citizenship voting laws in 2024, following Kansas’s example. These states are watching the Kansas litigation and the November 2026 constitutional amendment vote closely.
Some may attempt similar constitutional amendments if the Kansas strategy gains traction. This creates a national trend: after the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act in 2013, multiple states began passing stricter voting requirements, and the proof-of-citizenship approach has become part of that broader movement. The concern among voting rights advocates is that these laws, even if legally vulnerable, slow down voter registration and create a chilling effect—eligible citizens may give up trying to register if they’re unsure whether their documents will be accepted. The fact that eight states adopted this model despite Kansas’s legal losses shows that the appeal of stricter requirements overrides empirical evidence that noncitizen voting is extremely rare.
What Does This Mean for Voting Rights Going Forward?
The Kansas case illustrates an ongoing national conflict over voting access. On one side are officials and advocates who want stricter proof requirements, arguing this prevents fraud. On the other are federal courts, which have consistently found that such requirements block far more eligible voters than fraudsters, creating a constitutional imbalance. The November 2026 Kansas constitutional amendment vote will be a test of whether voters embrace stricter voting requirements even when courts have ruled them unconstitutional.
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court’s role may be decisive. If Kansas’s constitutional amendment is approved and then challenged in court again, the case could reach the Supreme Court. The current Supreme Court has shown willingness to uphold stricter voting requirements in some cases, so there’s no guarantee that federal courts will continue striking down proof-of-citizenship laws as readily as they did in Kansas. This uncertainty means the landscape of voting access remains in flux.
Conclusion
Kansas’s proof-of-citizenship voting law was struck down because it violated federal voting rights law and the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. The courts found that the law blocked 31,089 eligible voters while preventing only about 39 fraudulent registrations—a massive disparity that no compelling government interest justified.
Kansas paid $1.9 million in attorney fees and lost in both federal district court and federal appeals court, yet the state is now attempting to pursue the same policy through a state constitutional amendment set for a November 2026 vote. For voters and citizens, the Kansas case raises important questions about how much documentation should be required to exercise the right to vote, and who decides—courts applying federal law and the Constitution, or state voters through ballot measures. The outcome of the 2026 amendment vote and any subsequent legal challenge will shape voting access not just in Kansas but across the eight other states that have followed its model.
