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

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.”

  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    21·
    6 months ago

    But, if the law, as written, doesn’t say that, then that’s not really the law.

    Acting like we’re some codified law savages decended from the Roman Republic like the Fr*nch.

    • sylver_dragon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      6 months ago

      As opposed to?
      While being a country of written laws does have it’s pitfalls, it also means that we have something to go back to and agree on. There is a reason that political bodies have been codifying laws since the city-states of ancient Mesopotamia. The alternatives usually break down to some sort of “guy with the biggest stick, at the moment, makes the law”. No thanks, I’ll stick with being a “codified law savage”.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 months ago

        I was making a joke that our law is based on precedent (common law), compared to law based on the German or Napoleonic codes which decend from Rome

        • sylver_dragon@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 months ago

          So that explains the wooshing sound.
          Sorry, I guess I’ve been primed by one too many comments where folks seem to want to ignore the laws as written when they are inconvenient to the outcome they want.