{"id":2499,"date":"2016-07-26T01:02:07","date_gmt":"2016-07-26T01:02:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/?p=2499"},"modified":"2021-12-03T18:18:34","modified_gmt":"2021-12-03T23:18:34","slug":"whats-the-matter-with-kansas-and-the-national-voter-registration-form","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/2016\/07\/26\/whats-the-matter-with-kansas-and-the-national-voter-registration-form\/","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s the Matter with Kansas and the National Voter Registration Form?"},"content":{"rendered":"

What\u2019s the Matter with Kansas and the National Voter Registration Form?<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Carmen Hicks, TurboVote Research Lead, Democracy Works<\/p>\n

Federalism allows states to have agency in many aspects of policy creation, implementation, and regulation separate from that created by the federal government. It is this constitutionally managed balance that allows individual states to establish their own unique ways of administering elections. Voter registration is one of the more contentious aspects of a state\u2019s election administration responsibilities, as it affects a voter\u2019s ability to participate in both state and federal elections.<\/p>\n

Recently, the issue of proof of citizenship requirements\u2014which requires eligible voters to provide citizenship documentation with their state registration form in order to be eligible to vote in state and local elections\u2014has made its way to the national stage. Current battles in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas over adding these requirements to the National Voter Registration form (\u201cnational form\u201d) illustrate the complicated relationship between state and federal election administration in relation to voter registration.<\/p>\n

This relationship began when President Clinton signed into law the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which was the first federally mandated voter registration system reform applicable to all citizens.[1]<\/a> The NVRA, or the Motor Voter bill, requires state governments to offer voter registration to eligible applicants at Departments of Motor Vehicles and public assistance agencies.[2]<\/a> Additionally, Section 6 of this act establishes national standards for mail-in voter registration forms and requires states to accept a federal mail-in registration form, known as the National Voter Registration form.[3]<\/a> Before the establishment of the federal mail-in form, eligible citizens in many states had to register in person.[4]<\/a> In addition, registration requirements varied between states, creating confusion among voters and leading many to decide not to register.[5]<\/a> Because of the NVRA, eligible voters could use either the national form or a state mail-in form and expect a standardized and simplified voter registration process.<\/p>\n

Initially, national form development and maintenance fell to the Federal Election Commission\u2019s National Clearinghouse for Information on the Administration of Elections (\u201cthe Clearinghouse\u201d). Then, in 2002, in response to the voting systems and voter access problems identified in the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to reform the nation\u2019s voting process.[6]<\/a> HAVA transferred the Clearinghouse\u2019s functions, including those related to the national form, to the newly established Election Assistance Commission (EAC).[7]<\/a> The EAC is an independent entity that serves as a repository for federal election administration information and procedural review. The EAC consists of four commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.<\/p>\n

On September 15, 2008, the EAC commissioners unanimously adopted the Roles and Responsibilities policy, which delegated national form maintenance to the EAC Executive Director.[8]<\/a> As a result, the executive director could make changes to the general and state-specific instructions on the national form, as long as they made these changes in a manner that was consistent with the NVRA and EAC regulations and policies.[9]<\/a> General instructions include information such as who can use the national form and exceptions, how to fill out the form, how to submit the form, and requirements for first time voters who chose to use the national form. State-specific instructions cover every state\u2019s laws regarding eligibility, registration deadlines, identification requirements, choice of party, race or ethnic group disclosure, and the state\u2019s mailing address.<\/p>\n

Even though the executive director had the power to maintain the national form, the commissioners maintained sole discretion to approve, deny, and defer state requests to change the form. Between 2008 and 2011, the EAC voted on each state request, with deliberations properly noticed and conducted in public, and approval requiring at least three commissioners. Then in December 2010, the EAC lost its quorum of commissioners, which led to a November 2011 EAC memorandum establishing an interim procedure on processing state requests for changes to the national form.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

This interim procedure delegates the ability to process state requests to the Division of Research, Policy and Programs (RPP). The procedure allows the RPP to take action if the request is 1) to update the mailing address at which the state accepts forms or 2) a change in the state-specific instructions if and only if the update is required by a change in state law.[11]<\/a> The RPP, upon review and consultation with the Office of General Counsel, can then make recommendations to the Executive Director, with the Executive Director making the final determination.[12]<\/a> The interim procedure did stipulate that the RPP and Executive Director should defer state requests that pose broader policy implications until a quorum of commissioners was re-established.[13]<\/a> This procedure, coupled with the 2008 policy, functionally delegated state request processing and form maintenance duties to the EAC Executive Director.<\/p>\n

The first request to include proof of citizenship documentation came from Arizona in December 2005.[14]<\/a> A year prior, Arizona passed Proposition 200, which required voters to provide proof of citizenship with the state\u2019s registration form.[15]<\/a> Arizona asked the EAC to include these requirements in the national form\u2019s general instructions, which are required of voters from every state. The commissioners denied Arizona\u2019s request in March 2006 under the grounds that the national form already required applicants, under penalty of perjury, to affirm their citizenship with their signature and to complete a mandatory checkbox indicating that they are citizens of the United States.[16]<\/a> Furthermore, after reviewing the NVRA\u2019s legislative history, the EAC found that Congress itself did not believe that documentary proof of citizenship was necessary or consistent with the purpose of the statute\u2014to provide a simple and easy way to register to vote across states.[17]<\/a> Arizona, in response to the EAC\u2019s decision, refused to register national form applicants who did not provide proof of citizenship with their forms, thereby creating a two-tiered voter registration system in the state.<\/p>\n

Shortly after Proposition 200 passed, several groups filed suit against the state and proponents of the law in May 2006, just before the first general election the law would affect. These groups argued that the law violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was unconstitutional under the 14th<\/sup> and 24th<\/sup> Amendments, and was inconsistent with the purpose of the NVRA.[18]<\/a> The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc<\/em>.[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Court ruled in June 2013 that the NVRA preempted Arizona from requiring an individual registering to vote using the national form to provide documentation beyond that indicated on the Form.[20]<\/a> Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that \u201cthe Federal Form provides a backstop: No matter what procedural hurdles a State\u2019s own form imposes, the Federal Form guarantees that a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections will be available.\u201d[21]<\/a> As such, states could not require applicants to provide additional documentation when using the federal form, unless the EAC approved the state’s proposed changes to the instructions.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

Softening the overall ruling, the Court stipulated that the EAC must allow Arizona to make changes to the national form if Arizona can prove that it cannot properly exercise its constitutional authority to assess the eligibility of the voter by using the form alone.[23]<\/a> Furthermore, the Court also suggested that a refusal by the EAC could be subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act.[24]<\/a><\/p>\n

Following the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision, Arizona asked the EAC to add citizenship requirements to Arizona\u2019s state-specific instructions instead of to the national form\u2019s general instructions.[25]<\/a> In 2013, having passed proof of citizenship laws in their state legislatures in 2009 and 2011 respectively, Georgia[26]<\/a> and Kansas[27]<\/a> filed comparable requests with the EAC.[28]<\/a> In August 2013, the commission deferred all three requests, stating that the matters required the reestablishment of a quorum in the EAC and a vote.[29]<\/a><\/p>\n

In response to these deferments, Kansas and Arizona filed a lawsuit against the EAC in August 2013.[30]<\/a> The states argued that they have a constitutional right to establish voting qualifications, including proof of citizenship requirements.[31]<\/a> Furthermore, they argued that the EAC\u2019s lack of a quorum and refusal to modify state-specific instructions, due to their interpretation of the NVRA and HAVA, unconstitutionally prevented them from exercising this right in their section of the national form\u2019s state-specific instructions.[32]<\/a> Moreover, the states argued that their suit was supported by the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, Inc.,<\/em> which provided states with the opportunity to provide evidence in support of citizenship documentation in a reviewing court.[33]<\/a> In December 2013, the court found that the EAC had not yet taken a final action, and so remanded the matter to the EAC for a final decision.[34]<\/a><\/p>\n

At that time, the EAC did not have the quorum to stage a vote in order to comply with the court\u2019s order. However, as was previously mentioned in the article, the commissioners had already delegated national form maintenance responsibilities to the executive director. After a round of public comments and a review of EAC precedent, the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision, and NVRA and HAVA language with respect to the national form, then-Acting Executive Director Alice P. Miller outright denied the states\u2019 requests in January 2014.[35]<\/a><\/p>\n

In February 2014, Kansas and Arizona filed a motion asking the District Court of Kansas to review the EAC\u2019s decision.[36]<\/a> In March 2014, the District Court found that the EAC acted unlawfully and in excess of its statutory authority when it denied the requests.[37]<\/a> As a result, the court ruled that the EAC must update the national form to allow states to require proof of citizenship.[38]<\/a><\/p>\n

However, the EAC, along with several other groups, appealed the District Court\u2019s decision, leading the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to stay the order.[39]<\/a> In its subsequent decision, released in November 2014, the Tenth Circuit ruled that Kansas and Arizona could not force applicants using the NVRF to provide proof of citizenship when they registered to vote in federal races.[40]<\/a> The appeals court found that the states failed to prove that an applicant needed to provide additional citizenship documentation to protect against voter fraud.[41]<\/a> Based on this finding, the court reversed the district court\u2019s ruling requiring the EAC to add these state-specific instructions for Kansas and Arizona registrants.[42]<\/a><\/p>\n

Following the November ruling, Kansas and Arizona petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their challenge to the EAC\u2019s decision.[43]<\/a> In June 2015, the Court denied the petition for certiorari.[44]<\/a> This allowing the November decision to stand and legitimized the EAC\u2019s decision to reject the requests.<\/p>\n

In January 2013, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach had begun instructing county election officials to implement a two-tiered registration system.[45]<\/a> This system allowed applicants to register using the national form; however, national form registrants\u2019 votes would only count in federal elections, since they did not provide the proof of citizenship documentation needed to be eligible to vote in state and local elections.[46]<\/a> In September 2013, while Kobach was undergoing proceedings in Kobach v. EAC<\/em>, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Kansas filed a lawsuit against the state challenging its two-tiered voter registration system.[47]<\/a> The suit argued that Kansas\u2019s system divides eligible voters into two classes, with different rights and privileges, which violates the state\u2019s equal protection guarantees.[48]<\/a><\/p>\n

Due to subsequent rulings in Kobach v.<\/em> EAC <\/em>and the Supreme Court\u2019s decision not to hear the same, a Kansas state judge ruled that Kobach could not enforce proof of citizenship requirements for applicants that use the national form in January 2016.[49]<\/a> In his ruling, the judge found that whether a voter had registered by state or by federal form should not determine a person’s registration status in the state.[50]<\/a> This ruling seemed to solidify the principle that the national form should remain simple and without barriers, as it was conceived under the NVRA.<\/p>\n

Despite ongoing legal battles and rulings against proof of citizenship requirements, states continued to pass legislation and issue requests to the EAC to include them on the national form. After passing its citizenship requirement in 2012, Alabama[51]<\/a> issued a request to the EAC in December 2014,[52]<\/a> and Kansas issued another request in November 2015.[53]<\/a> The EAC was still reviewing both requests by the EAC at the time of the January 2016 ruling in Belenky v. Kobach<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Just days after the Belenky v. Kobach<\/em> ruling in January 2016, newly appointed EAC Executive Director Brian Newby notified Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas that their requests were approved. Thomas Hicks, one of the three EAC commissioners and the only Democrat, immediately criticized Newby\u2019s decision, stating that the action \u201ccontradicts policy and precedent previously established by this commission.\u201d[54]<\/a> In fact, Georgia\u2019s request, made in August 2013, had already been denied by then-Acting Executive Director Alice Miller in 2014, and the state had made no attempt to re-issue their request since then.<\/p>\n

Newby, however, considered himself well within his rights as the executive director to send the approval letters.[55]<\/a> This perspective notwithstanding, Newby also stated that \u201cany interested party\u201d could ask the EAC to review his decision and that the decision \u201cwas not final.\u201d[56]<\/a> He went on to say that his actions only \u201cstarted the process.\u201d[57]<\/a><\/p>\n

Then on February 12, 2016, the League of Women Voters of the United States filed a federal suit against the EAC.[58]<\/a> In its complaint, the League alleges that Executive Director Brian Newby\u2019s actions violated HAVA and the EAC\u2019s own established policy and precedent requiring a vote by the EAC on changes to the national form.[59]<\/a> Furthermore, the League asserts that Executive Director Newby ignored the EAC\u2019s administrative procedures, which require formal notice and a comment period, as well as a presentation of the requests to the commissioners.[60]<\/a> Finally, the suit claims that his actions exceeded the EAC\u2019s statutory authority, as the states failed to prove the necessity of proof of citizenship requirements to prevent voter fraud.[61]<\/a> In an attempt to prevent the citizenship requirements from taking effect, the League requested a temporary restraining order against the EAC and Executive Director Brian Newby in February. A DC District Court judge denied that request on February 23, 2016.[62]<\/a><\/p>\n

Less than a week after the League of Women Voters\u2019s complaint, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action suit on behalf of six Kansans denied the right to register at the state\u2019s Department of Motor Vehicles.[63]<\/a> The ACLU alleges that Kansas\u2019s proof of citizenship law violates the section of the NVRA that allows voters to register to vote when they get a driver\u2019s license after attesting to their citizenship under threat of perjury.[64]<\/a><\/p>\n

The ACLU believes that Kansas\u2019s claimed basis for requiring proof of citizenship documentation, to protect against voter fraud on the part of non-citizens, is unfounded, and that Kansas\u2019s policy is highly restrictive.[65]<\/a> According to the suit, since Kansas implemented its proof of citizenship law in early 2013, more than 35,000 voter registrations have been in suspense, accounting for about 14 percent of all voter registrations filed during that period.[66]<\/a> In response, Secretary of State Kobach claimed that less than 11,000 applications are now in suspense, as some applicants later provided the required documentation.[67]<\/a><\/p>\n

The ACLU saw its first big win in this case on May 17, 2016. The Court ordered Kansas to register thousands of eligible voters who have been in \u201csuspense\u201d since 2013. Kansas officials must start registering approximately 18,000 otherwise qualified motor voter applicants by June 1, 2016.[68]<\/a> This will give voters a chance to participate in the upcoming Kansas Statewide Primary Election in August and the November Presidential Election.<\/p>\n

Despite the preliminary injunction, Secretary Kobach received administrative approval on July 12 to enact K.A.R. 7-23-16, a temporary regulation that seeks to formalize his two-tiered voter registration system. [69]<\/a> In response, the ACLU filed yet another suit against Kobach on July 19.[70]<\/a> This suit relies heavily on the arguments and ruling in Belenky v. Kobach<\/em>: it reiterates that this system violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution by treating voters unequally based on their registration method.[71]<\/a> The ACLU furthermore alleges that Kobach\u2019s enforcement of this system and the adoption of the temporary regulation \u201cexceeded his authority [as Secretary of State] and improperly trespassed on the domain of the legislature,\u201d violating the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in Kansas Constitution.[72]<\/a><\/p>\n

In addition to the preliminary injunction, the EAC advisory board, a 20-member body composed of election officials from around the country, approved a resolution requiring these types of changes be decided and voted on by the commissioners in a 13-7 vote at its May gathering.[73]<\/a> Although this decision is purely advisory, it upholds existing EAC precedent on this matter and demonstrates widespread disapproval of Executive Director Newby\u2019s actions. It is now up to the commissioners to consider the advisory board\u2019s recommendation and decide how to proceed.[74]<\/a><\/p>\n

At this point, the EAC is unable to move forward on the advisory board\u2019s recommendation, since it does not have the members needed to conduct a vote. Although President Obama recently nominated former Nevada Treasurer Kate Marshall to fill the fourth seat needed for a quorum,[75]<\/a> it is highly unlikely that the Senate will confirm her. Marshall, a Democrat nominated by President Obama, faces an uphill climb going before a Republican majority in the Senate during a presidential election year.<\/p>\n

Considering this, it looks like it will be up to the courts, not the EAC, to resolve the battle over proof of citizenship requirements on the national form. It is likely that these rulings, which may come at any time, will be appealed by the losing parties, and could make their way to the Supreme Court. The rulings, whatever they are, will have long-lasting impacts. These decisions will affect future interpretations of the purpose of the NVRA with respect to the national form, the role of the EAC and its staff in these matters, the balance between state and federal election administration, and, ultimately, how eligible voters who do not provide proof of citizenship vote in state and local elections.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> See <\/em>J. Mijin Cha, Demos, Registering Millions: The Success and Potential of the National Voter Registration Act 201 (2013).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> See<\/em> 52 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 20504(a)(1), 20506(2)(a) (2012).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> See <\/em>id.<\/em> \u00a7 20505(a)(1).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Cha, supra <\/em>note 1 at 1.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at 3\u20134.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> See <\/em>H.R. 3295, 107th Cong. (2002) (enacted).<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> See <\/em>52 U.S.C. \u00a7 20922 (2012).<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> See <\/em>U.S. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n, EAC000064-72, The Roles and Responsibilities of the Commissioners and Executive Director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 8 (2008) http:\/\/www.eac.gov\/assets\/1\/workflow_staging\/Page\/348.PDF<\/a> \u00a0[https:\/\/perma.cc\/QBH7-2EWG<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> See <\/em>Exec. Dir., U.S. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n, Memorandum: State Requests to Change their State-Specific Instructions on the National Mail Voter Registration Form 1 (2011).<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at 2.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> See <\/em>U.S. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n, EAC-2013-0004, Memorandum of Decision Concerning State Requests to Include Additional Proof-Of-Citizenship Instructions on the National Mail Voter Registration Form 2 (2014) [hereinafter Memorandum of Decision] http:\/\/www.eac.gov\/assets\/1\/Documents\/20140117%20EAC%20Final%20Decision%20on%20Proof%20of%20Citizenship%20Requests%20-%20FINAL.pdf<\/a> [https:\/\/perma.cc\/DH2X-LDRU<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Ariz., Proposition 200: Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act \u00a7 4 (2004), http:\/\/apps.azsos.gov\/election\/2004\/general\/initiative_petition.pdf<\/a> [https:\/\/perma.cc\/CF9U-X8W4<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> See <\/em>Memorandum of Decision, supra <\/em>note 14 at 2.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> See id.<\/em> at 20\u201321.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> See <\/em>ITCA Plaintiffs\u2019 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Costs at 2\u20133, G<\/em>onzalez v. Arizona<\/em>, No. 2:06-cv-01268 (D. Ariz. Nov. 12, 2013).<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.<\/em>, 133 S. Ct. 2247 (2013).<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> See id.<\/em> at 2260.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at 2255.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> See id. <\/em>at 2260.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> See <\/em>Memorandum of Decision, supra <\/em>note 14 at 3.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> See <\/em>Ga. Code. Ann. \u00a7 21-2-216(g) (2015).<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> See <\/em>Kan. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 25-2309(l) (2016).<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> See <\/em>Memorandum of Decision, supra <\/em>note 14 at 3\u20134.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Complaint, Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n<\/em>, No. 5:13-cv-04095 (D. Kan. Aug. 21, 2013).<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> See id.<\/em> at 3.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> See id.<\/em> at 4.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> See Kobach v. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n<\/em>, No. 5:13-cv-04095 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 2013) (order remanding to EAC).<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Memorandum of Decision, supra <\/em>note 14 at 45.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> See Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n<\/em>, 6 F. Supp. 3d 1252, 1257 (D. Kan. 2014), rev\u2019d<\/em>, 772 F. 3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014).<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> See id. <\/em>at 1255.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> See id. <\/em>at 1271.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> See Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n<\/em>, 772 F.3d 1183, 1189 (10th Cir. 2014).<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> See id. <\/em>at 1197\u201398.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> See id. <\/em>at 1188.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> See Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n<\/em>, 135 S. Ct. 2891, 2891 (2015).<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> See <\/em>Roxana Hegeman, \u2018Chaos\u2019 In Kansas: ACLU Says Two-Thirds Voter Registrations On Hold<\/em>, Talking Points Memo (Apr. 26, 2016), http:\/\/talkingpointsmemo.com\/news\/kris-kobach-voter-registration-aclu-lawsuit<\/a> [http:\/\/perma.cc\/BG6U-KZAM<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[46]<\/a> See <\/em>Edward M. Eveld, Judge rules Kris Kobach can’t operate two-tier election system in Kansas<\/em>, Kan. City Star (Jan. 15, 2016), http:\/\/www.kansascity.com\/news\/politics-government\/article54933870.html<\/a> [https:\/\/perma.cc\/T45S-P9S6<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[47]<\/a> See <\/em>Petition Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60 for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 18, Belenky v. Kobach<\/em>, No. 2013cv1331 (Kan. Dist. Ct., Nov. 21, 2013).<\/p>\n

[48]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[49]<\/a> See Belenky v. Kobach<\/em>, No. 2013cv1331 at *26 (Kan. Dist. Ct. Jan. 15, 2016).<\/p>\n

[50]<\/a> See id. <\/em>at *17\u201318.<\/p>\n

[51]<\/a> See <\/em>H.B. 658, Ala. State Leg., Reg. Sess. 2012 (Ala. 2012).<\/p>\n

[52]<\/a> See <\/em>Letter from Jim Bennett, Ala. Sec\u2019y of State, to Comm\u2019rs, U.S. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n (Dec. 22, 2014), http:\/\/www.eac.gov\/assets\/1\/Documents\/State%20of%20Alabama%20NVRA%20for%20instruction%20request%20Dec%2018%202014.pdf<\/a> [https:\/\/perma.cc\/FBL7-JBF8].<\/p>\n

[53]<\/a> See <\/em>Letter from Bryan Caskey, Election Dir., Kan. Sec\u2019y of State\u2019s Office, to Brian Newby, Exec. Dir., U.S. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n (Nov. 17, 2015), http:\/\/www.eac.gov\/assets\/1\/Documents\/Newby%20Ltr%2011-19-2015.pdf<\/a> [https:\/\/perma.cc\/ZJ62-QVDE].<\/p>\n

[54]<\/a> Pam Fessler, Change At Federal Election Agency Muddles Kansas Voter Registration Laws<\/em>, NPR: the two-way (Feb. 2, 2016) http:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/thetwo-way\/2016\/02\/02\/465353108\/as-voting-begins-several-states-voter-id-laws-remain-in-flux<\/a> [https:\/\/perma.cc\/TD2E-VE4K<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[55]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[56]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[57]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[58]<\/a> See <\/em>Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 2, League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Election Assistance Comm\u2019n<\/em>, No. 1:16-cv-00236 (D.D.C. Feb. 12, 2016).<\/p>\n

[59]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[60]<\/a> See id. <\/em>at 1\u20132.<\/p>\n

[61]<\/a> See id.<\/em> at 2.<\/p>\n

[62]<\/a> See League of Women Voters v. Newby<\/em>, 2016 WL 3636604 at *4 (D.D.C. June 29, 2016) (No. 1:16-cv-00236).<\/p>\n

[63]<\/a> See <\/em>Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief at 1\u20132, Fish v. Kobach<\/em>, No. 2:16-cv-02105 (D. Kan. Feb. 18, 2016).<\/p>\n

[64]<\/a> See id<\/em>. at 28\u201329.<\/p>\n

[65]<\/a> See <\/em>John Eligon, A.C.L.U. Challenges Kansas Voter Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship<\/em>, The N.Y. Times (Feb. 18, 2016), http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2016\/02\/19\/us\/aclu-challenges-kansas-voter-law-requiring-proof-of-citizenship.html?_r=0<\/a> [https:\/\/perma.cc\/9HW7-EM7V<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[66]<\/a> See<\/em> Fish<\/em>, No. 2:16-cv-02105 at 23.<\/p>\n

[67]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[68]<\/a> See Fish v. Kobach<\/em>, No. 16-2015-JAR-JPO, 2016 WL 2866195 at *31\u201332 (D. Kan. May 17, 2016).<\/p>\n

[69]<\/a> Kan. Admin. Regs. \u00a7 7-23-16 (temporary).<\/p>\n

[70]<\/a> See <\/em>Petition Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60 for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Brown v. Kobach<\/em>, No. not yet assigned at 1 (Kan. Dist. Ct., Jul. 19, 2013), https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/legal-document\/brown-v-kobach-petition<\/a> [https:\/\/perma.cc\/T8FV-B4NJ<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[71]<\/a> See id. <\/em>at 13\u201314.<\/p>\n

[72]<\/a> See id. <\/em>at 12.<\/p>\n

[73]<\/a> See <\/em>Pam Fessler, Election Commission Advisory Board Disagrees With Director Over Citizenship Rule<\/em>, NPR (May 5, 2016), http:\/\/www.npr.org\/2016\/05\/05\/476933327\/election-commission-advisory-board-clashes-with-director-over-citizenship-rule<\/a> [http:\/\/perma.cc\/W3VT-VQYT<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[74]<\/a> See id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[75]<\/a> Doug Chapin, President Obama Nominates Nevada\u2019s Kate Marshall to EAC<\/em>, Election Academy (May 3, 2016), http:\/\/editions.lib.umn.edu\/electionacademy\/2016\/05\/03\/president-obama-nominates-nevadas-kate-marshall-to-eac\/<\/a> [https:\/\/perma.cc\/K9X2-JZCL<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What\u2019s the Matter with Kansas and the National Voter Registration Form? by Carmen Hicks, TurboVote Research Lead, Democracy Works Federalism […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":101984,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jol-online","category-jol-online-article"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQ7o-Ej","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2499","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101984"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2499\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}