Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Appeals Court Prohibits Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration as “Unlawful”


No… this isn’t The Onion or Babylon Bee.

This is real news… and yes, it is really alarming.

A federal appeals court has ruled that it is unlawful for the state of Kansas to require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Only U.S. citizens can vote for president of the United State.

But now Kansas will be unable to verify that voters are indeed citizens.

It’s not just Kansas — multiple states are having their voter ID laws challenged in court, and this new ruling has set a dangerous precedent.

COVID-19 has put voting back in the spotlight with many states and Democratic leaders fighting for vote-by-mail provisions. 

Mail-in voting makes it practically impossible to check voter ID, but now, it appears that even voter ID is under attack.

More details on this alarming bombshell development below:

The state of Kansas was attempting to reinstate Kris Kobach's Voter ID law, which would required proof of citizenship to be able to register to vote.

However, the court claimed that the law violates the Constitution as well as the National Voter Registration Act.

Fox News has more details on this stunning ruling:

A federal appeals court has struck down a restrictive voting law from Kansas that had required proof of citizenship before registering to vote.

The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the federal district court that the documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) requirement “unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote.” The court concluded more than 31,000 Kansas residents were prevented from registering to vote.

Kansas is one of several states whose voter ID laws are being challenged in court.

The Kansas Secretary of State had defended the law, saying it was necessary to ensure the integrity of the voting process. But the three-judge appellate panel found, “The Secretary has failed to show that a substantial number of noncitizens have successfully registered in Kansas.”


“We conclude that the significant burden quantified by the 31,089 voters who had their registration applications canceled or suspended” in the state, said the 84-page court opinion. “The precise interests put forward by the Secretary do not justify the burden imposed on the right to vote.  Thus, we conclude the DPOC requirement is unconstitutional.”

There was no immediate reaction from state officials to the ruling.

ID is required to buy alcohol and to drive.

Voting is a sacred right protected by the Constitution specifically for American citizens, yet the federal appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require proof of citizenship.

The ruling comes after years of conservative leaders warning that the far-left wants open borders in the United States.

Fortunately, the ruling only applies to Kansas, but many observers feel it will set a dangerous precedent for other states facing the same battle.

Voter fraud is a hot button issue, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on.

People are wanting to balance safety and health with the integrity of the U.S. election.

Strangely, after 3 years investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, many Democrats appear reluctant to support voter ID.

The legal experts at Law and Crime have a detailed analysis on why the federal appeals court ruled against voter ID:

In analyzing whether Kansas’s DPOC requirement violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the court performed a balancing test which weighed the “burdens the voting requirement imposes against the interest the government asserts.”

Basing their application of the test on the district court’s finding that the DPOC requirements prevented 31,089 applicants from registering to vote, the court concluded that the burden imposed on voting rights were “significant and require[d] heightened scrutiny.”

Kansas’s secretary of state argued that the DPOC requirements protected the state’s interests in protecting the accuracy and integrity of the electoral process, and preventing voter fraud. The court agreed that such interests were legitimate in the abstract, but found no evidence that the law’s requirements furthered those interests in any meaningful way, particularly in light of the district court’s finding that “at most, 67 noncitizens registered or attempted to register to vote in Kansas” since 1999.

“The district court found that, even under calculations from one of the Secretary’s experts, the estimated number of suspended applications that belonged to noncitizens was ‘statistically indistinguishable from zero,’ while ‘more than 99% of the individuals’ whose voter-registration applications were suspended were citizens who presumably would have been able to vote but for the DPOC requirement,” the court wrote.

Due to the obvious disparity, the court held that the facts of the case simply did not support the conclusion that Kansas’s legitimate interests justified the burden the DPOC law imposed on the right to vote.

The court also held that the law violated the NVRA by requiring applicants to provide information in excess of that required under federal law, reasoning that the secretary failed to present any evidence that a “substantial number of noncitizens” had successfully registered to vote in Kansas.

“Thus, the DPOC requirement necessarily requires more information than federal law presumes necessary for state officials to meet their eligibility-assessment and registration duties. And so we conclude that Kansas’s DPOC law is preempted by section 5 of the NVRA. We uphold the district court’s entry of a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the DPOC requirement as to those voters who sought to register under section 5 of the NVRA.”

Voter ID shouldn't be a partisan issue.

It should be supported by any American citizen who wants to protect the integrity of our elections and minimize the chances for any foreign interference!

Voting is a right! And we must protect it as such.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

We Love Trump
Thanks for sharing!