A federal appellate court has unanimously upheld a Kansas law that prohibits third-party organizations from sending voters pre-filled applications for mail-in ballots, reversing a lower court's ruling that had previously blocked the statute. The decision marks a significant development in the ongoing national debate over how states balance election security with access to mail-in voting.

Explainer Securing America's Elections: Challenges, Reforms, and the Path Forward

Kansas lawmakers have argued that the law is necessary to reduce confusion among voters and to protect the integrity of the voting process. The Kansas Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, enacted the law in 2021. This move came after officials reported a surge of error-prone, pre-filled mail-in ballot applications sent to voters during a previous election cycle. The law was passed over the veto of Democratic Governor Laura Kelly, reflecting a partisan divide over voting regulations in the state.

The statute was challenged in federal court by two organizations, VoteAmerica and the Voter Participation Center (VPC). Both groups argued that the law violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by restricting their ability to communicate with voters and encourage participation in mail-in voting, particularly among demographics that tend to support Democratic candidates.

The 10th Circuit’s Decision

A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals—Judges Timothy Tymkovich, Joel Carson, and Senior Judge Michael Murphy—found that the Kansas law does not violate constitutional protections. Judge Tymkovich, writing for the court, stated that the district court had erred in finding the law was enacted with improper motives. The panel found no evidence in the law’s text, justifications, or legislative history to support the conclusion that the statute was intended to suppress speech or target specific viewpoints.

"Because the prohibition was enacted without an improper purpose, we apply intermediate scrutiny and find the prohibition constitutional."

— Timothy Tymkovich, 10th Circuit Judge

The appellate court concluded that the law is unrelated to the suppression of free speech, emphasizing that it was not adopted due to disagreement with the message conveyed by organizations like VoteAmerica and VPC. Instead, the court accepted Kansas’s stated reasons for the law, such as preventing voter confusion and administrative errors, as legitimate and not aimed at suppressing any particular viewpoint.

The legal dispute began when Senior District Judge Kathryn Vratil issued a temporary injunction blocking the law. Judge Vratil later ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the law unlawfully chilled their speech. However, the 10th Circuit reversed her decision and instructed her to apply a lower level of scrutiny unless improper motives by the legislature could be proven. Judge Vratil again found such motives, prompting a second appeal to the appellate court.

Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, which supported Kansas in the case, described the law as a "commonsense reform" intended to keep elections orderly. "Kansas acted after error-filled, prefilled mail-ballot applications flooded voters and overwhelmed county election officials in 2020. Protecting voters from confusion and keeping elections orderly is commonsense, not suspect," Snead said.

Arguments from Both Sides

VoteAmerica and VPC, the organizations challenging the law, argued that it restricts their ability to encourage mail-in voting, particularly among groups more likely to support Democratic candidates. They maintained that the law hampers their outreach efforts and could reduce participation among voters who rely on assistance to navigate the mail-in voting process.

The appellate court, however, found that VPC did not demonstrate that the law was intended to suppress pro-mail-voting viewpoints. The court noted that the district court’s reliance on broader national debates over mail-in voting was insufficient to establish improper legislative intent in Kansas. Instead, the panel focused on the specific justifications offered by Kansas lawmakers, such as reducing confusion and administrative errors.

Supporters of the law, including the Honest Elections Project, argue that the measure is necessary to prevent administrative errors and confusion caused by inaccurate or duplicative mail-in ballot applications. Critics, on the other hand, contend that the law limits voter outreach efforts and could make it more difficult for some voters to access mail-in ballots. The court’s ruling did not address whether the law makes voting more difficult, instead focusing on the constitutional questions of legislative intent and free speech.

Broader Context and Next Steps

The Kansas case is part of a broader trend of states enacting new rules around mail-in voting following recent election cycles marked by disputes over ballot access and security. In the wake of the 2020 election, many states have considered or adopted changes to their mail-in voting procedures, citing concerns about election integrity and administrative challenges.

The appellate court’s decision sets a precedent for similar laws in other states, potentially influencing how courts evaluate challenges to mail-in voting restrictions elsewhere. However, further legal challenges could arise, particularly if new evidence emerges regarding legislative intent or the practical impact of such laws on voter participation.

The district court has been instructed to proceed under the appellate court’s guidance unless new evidence comes to light regarding improper legislative motives. The outcome of this case may continue to shape the legal landscape around mail-in voting and the balance between election security and voter access in Kansas and beyond.