On August 21, the Secretaries of State of Kansas and Arizona filed a joint lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Kansas, to regain the right of those states to require newly-registering individuals to submit documentary proof of citizenship when the federal voter registration form is used.

The case is Kobach v U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 5:13cv4095. It was assigned to U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren, a George W. Bush appointee.

The federal voter postcard registration form requires applicants to sign under penalty of perjury that the applicant is a citizen. But state laws in Kansas and Arizona require that documents proving citizenship must be attached to the form. Because the form is a postcard, a requirement that extra documents be attached is cumbersome. Kansas law says that these documents are sufficient to prove citizenship: (1) a drivers license or nondriver ID card, but only if the card carries language saying the holder has submitted a birth certificate to get the form. Kansas drivers licenses and nondriver ID forms do not carry this language; (2) a birth certificate; (3) a passport; (4) a naturalization certificate; (5) a Bureau of Indian Affairs card; (6) a Consular Report of birth abroad to a U.S. citizen.

Ironically, even these documents do not provide absolute proof of citizenship (except for passports) because theoretically, someone with one of those documents might have renounced U.S. citizenship later.

The lawsuit asks that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission be forced to approve the Kansas and Arizona requests that the federal form be modified for use in those two states. The Commission is handicapped because it has no sitting commissioners, but the lawsuit says that the staff of the agency could approve the changes. Secretary of State Kobach says that if his lawsuit does not succeed, he will begin a separate voter registration category in Kansas, one for voters who can only vote in federal elections, and another for voters who can vote in all elections. Voters who used the federal form would not be permitted to vote in state and local elections.

On August 21, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Lewis, an Obama appointee, ruled that the Greenville County Republican Party does not have standing to challenge South Carolina’s open primary. The case is Greenville County Republican Party v State of South Carolina, 6:10cv-1407. It had been filed in 2010 and was about to have its first trial, but now the case is dismissed. The state Republican Party dropped out of the case several months ago. If it had remained in the case, standing would not have been an issue.

The lawsuit had been filed to enable the Republican Party to exclude non-Republicans from voting in its primaries. Another issue in the case was the state law that tells parties they may only nominate by convention if three-fourths of the delegates to the state convention vote to use conventions.

In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee v Eu that a county political party does have standing to challenge state election laws that restrict political parties. The Greenville County Republican Party will appeal the ruling on standing to the Fourth Circuit.