(Will be updated as with reaction)
A judge has dismissed a Democratic Party lawsuit seeking to force Secretary of State Scott Schwab to implement a law allowing voters to cast ballots anywhere in the county where they reside.
Shawnee County District Judge Thomas Luedke found that voters would not be harmed if the state didn’t implement the so-called Vote Anywhere law in time for the 2020 general election.
“If the Vote Anywhere Act is not implemented by the 2020 election, and there is no requirement that it must be, the petitioners will be no worse off than they were in the last election,” Luedke wrote.
“The precinct scheme will be the same as it has been for over 100 years, existing harmoniously, unchallenged by conflict with any constitutional mandate,” he wrote.
“The petitioners have made no contention that they will be harmed if the present precinct system remains in place for the 2020 election,” he said in the 17-page opinion issued Tuesday morning.
The judge flipped the argument of the Democrats, who contended that the coronavirus pandemic made it necessary for allowing voters to cast ballots at centralized voting centers instead of designated polling places throughout a community.
“The problem with this idea is that the Vote Anywhere Act will tend to concentrate voters at specific voting centers,” Luedke said.
“The greater the number of voters in one area, the more likely the virus is to spread and the more difficult it will be to maintain social distancing,” he said.
“Spreading voters out geographically would seem consistent with the venerate principle of social distancing.”
The Democratic National Committee joined with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Kansas Democratic Party to file the lawsuit against the secretary of state.
“Today’s ruling reiterated our office has been faithfully executing our duties with the promulgation of vote center rules and regulations,” Secretary of State Scott Scwab said in a statement.
“The hypocrisy of Democrats in demanding the implementation of vote centers while also advocating for the elimination of polling places through all mail ballot elections is evidence of their systemic ignorance of election law and administration,” he said.
“Major changes to the administration of our elections should not be rushed out of political impulse or expediency.”
Democrats had argued that Schwab intentionally delayed implementing the law passed by the Legislature in 2019.
They contended that Schwab tried to block the law by telling county officials not to implement the new voting procedure until new rules and regulations were put in place.
Luedke said that even if it was assumed that Schwab tried to interfere with the law, he questioned how it would affect the right to vote.
“Does failing to make voting as convenient as possible burden the right to vote?” he asked.
“This is not a case where a state has created any impediment to voting as it currently exists.
“It would seem to follow that if the present system doesn’t burden the right to vote, then the failure to implement a law making the present system more convenient creates no more of a burden,” he ruled.
Luedke said the plaintiffs didn’t provide any evidence to show that Schwab issued a directive ordering the counties to not carry out the voting procedure.
“In fact, as is the fashion, the petitioners cite only to media articles in support of their obstruction/coercion allegation,” he wrote.
Luedke found that Schwab was not in a position to stop the law, writing that the Vote Anywhere statute is in the “complete discretion” of the county election officers, whether or not the secretary of state develops new rules and regulations.
“If the Secretary devises regulations, the election officials must follow them, but the implementation of the law remains in the discretion of the locals,” he said.
In the cases of the four counties where the secretary of state appoints election commissioners, Luedke was not persuaded that they could be forced into not implementing the law.
The judge said state law only requires the appointment of an election commissioner every four years, but it does not provide for successive four-year terms.
“The threat of coercion could only exist if the Secretary had the option to appoint for additional terms,” he said. “Otherwise, removal could only be for cause or expiration of the term.”
Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, who represented the Democrats, called the decision a win since the ruling establishes that counties have the ability to move ahead with the “Vote Anywhere” law.
“In a very interesting way, we won,” Irigonegaray said. “We win in that now county election officials can not be told not to allow that process to occur.
“Although the case is over, we accomplished our goal,” he said. “I have never celebrated one of my cases being dismissed before.”
