News & Commentary

“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.

On August 4, voters in Kansas and Missouri voted down ballot measures that would have opened the door for attacks on our democracy. In both states, politicians referred measures to the ballot to deceive voters and attempt to diminish the power of the people. But the people struck those efforts down by wide margins: 61% voted No in Kansas, and a striking 80% voted No in Missouri. The Kansas measure would have dismantled the state’s impartial Supreme Court and made it subject to partisan elections, while a measure in Missouri would have made it next to impossible for voters to use the citizen-initiated ballot process to protect their rights with citizen-led ballot initiatives.

“So much was on the line tonight: abortion rights, voting rights, public education, workers’ rights, and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to every Kansan,” said Micah Kubic, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas. “The politicians behind this amendment wanted a court they could control — a court that would do their bidding instead of following the law and the constitution.

“The billionaire political donors and politicians behind this amendment tried to buy our Supreme Court,” Kubic said. “They tried to turn our justices into politicians for sale, all so they could control the court’s rulings and take away our rights. But tonight, Kansas said NO.”