Introduction

In the case of Fish et al. v. Schwab et al., multiple plaintiffs challenged a Kansas state law mandating documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) for voter registration. The plaintiffs, including individuals and organizations like the League of Women Voters of Kansas, contended that the DPOC requirement was preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The key parties involved were the plaintiffs representing themselves and similarly situated individuals, and Scott Schwab, the Secretary of State of Kansas.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding that Kansas's DPOC requirement for voter registration was both unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and preempted by section 5 of the NVRA. Consequently, the court imposed a permanent injunction, preventing the enforcement of the DPOC requirement against individuals registering to vote through the motor voter process.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced several key cases and statutes, including:

• National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 52 U.S.C. § 20504: Specifically section 5, which governs motor voter provisions and sets the minimum information states can require for voter registration.
• CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, 553 U.S. 181 (2008): This case established the Anderson-Burdick balancing test for evaluating voter identification laws under the Equal Protection Clause.
• ANDERSON v. CELEBREZZE, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) and BURDICK v. TAKUSHI, 504 U.S. 428 (1992): These cases introduced the balancing test used to assess the constitutionality of election regulations.
• Fish I, 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016): A prior related case where the Tenth Circuit held that the DPOC requirement was preempted by the NVRA.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed a two-pronged analysis:

1. Equal Protection Clause: Utilizing the Anderson-Burdick balancing test, the court weighed the burden the DPOC imposed on the fundamental right to vote against Kansas's asserted interests in safeguarding electoral integrity, accuracy of voter rolls, and preventing voter fraud. The court found that the significant disenfranchisement of approximately 30,000 would-be voters could not be justified by the scant evidence of non-citizen voter fraud.
2. Preemption by NVRA: Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the Tenth Circuit applied the framework established in Fish I, determining that Kansas failed to demonstrate that a substantial number of non-citizens were registering to vote despite the attestation requirement. Thus, the DPOC requirement exceeded the minimum information mandated by the NVRA and was preempted.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for voter registration laws not only in Kansas but across the United States:

• Stringency of Voter Identification Laws: States must ensure that any voter identification requirements align with the minimum information standards set by the NVRA and do not impose undue burdens on the right to vote.
• Federal Oversight: The decision reinforces federal preemption over state laws concerning voter registration when they conflict with federal statutes like the NVRA.
• Judicial Scrutiny: Courts will continue to apply rigorous standards when evaluating election laws that potentially disenfranchise voters, ensuring that state interests are substantiated by concrete evidence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit's affirmation in Fish et al. v. Schwab et al. underscores the critical balance between a state's responsibility to maintain electoral integrity and the fundamental right to vote. By declaring Kansas's DPOC voter registration requirement unconstitutional and preempted by the NVRA, the court has set a precedent that limits states from imposing overly burdensome requirements that could disenfranchise substantial numbers of voters without substantial justification. This decision reinforces the necessity for states to craft voter registration laws that are both fair and compliant with federal standards, ensuring that the right to participate in elections remains accessible to eligible citizens.