News & Commentary

Opponents, like the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, say it’s already law that only citizens can vote, and passing this amendment could open the floodgates to problematic voting restrictions. Rashane Hamby, director of policy and research for the ACLU of Kansas, said “the language in (the amendment) could be weaponized to justify a return to restrictive voter registration laws, as it explicitly conditions voter eligibility on U.S. citizenship, despite no evidence of noncitizen voting.” Amii Castle, a law professor at the University of Kansas, worries it could open the gates for legislators to try the law that required registering voters to prove their citizenship again. That law was struck down by a federal judge.

The ACLU of Kansas will run a statewide, nonpartisan voter assistance hotline that can be reached at 866-687-8683. The hotline is also available in multiple languages:

The ACLU is looking at Kansas as one of the closest watched states this election cycle. “This year, we are keeping our eye on places like Iowa, Kansas, California and Maine,” said Deirdre Schifeling with the ACLU.

“We have definitely stepped up our election protection work and have the largest, most robust program we’ve ever had — covering more polling places with more volunteers and prepared for more scenarios,” said Micah Kubic, executive director of the ACLU of Kansas. “We are still recruiting, so I wouldn’t want to commit to numbers yet — but in August, we doubled the size of the program over prior years and anticipate doing the same for November.”

So, what’s the distinction? And why are groups like the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and the League of Women Voters advocating for Kansans to vote “no” in the Nov. 3 general election?

Opponents of the amendment include the Kansas chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union and the League of Women Voters, both of which submitted written testimony in opposition to the amendment during the 2025 legislative session. Davis Hammet, president of Loud Light Civic Action, a voting rights advocacy group in Kansas, also opposed the measure.

The case, Doe v. State of Kansas, challenges the legality of SB 244, with those most significantly affected by the law at the center. (Disclosure: Ballard Spahr LLP provides legal support to Prism.) “Hopefully at the end of the day, we can get relief for transgender and intersex people throughout Kansas,” said Harper Seldin, a staff attorney in the ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project who is working on the case. “There really is no limit to what legislatures are willing to do to try to push transgender people out of public life.” The state district court is currently hearing arguments for Doe v. Kansas. Seldin hopes that the case progresses swiftly, underlining how trans Kansans can’t live under these legal limitations. “Our plaintiffs are just ordinary folks who are trying to live their lives in their communities where they’ve been embedded for many years,” Seldin said. “Laws like this basically say, ‘You don’t belong here. You’re not the kind of person who’s fit to be in society with other people. And we’re going to demonstrate that via your driver’s license, making you hang a sign around your neck that makes you declare your trans and intersex status.’”

The ACLU of Kansas raised a similar concern when lawmakers considered the amendment. In written testimony, policy director Rashane Hamby said changing the Constitution from affirmative voter language to restrictive language could pave the way for future voting restrictions, including another attempt at documentary proof of citizenship.

The ACLU of Kansas and partner groups sued Dodge City, in majority-minority Ford County, arguing its citywide elections diluted the votes of the city’s Latino majority.