Controversial Kansas voting laws take effect — despite legal challenges. Here's what to know

A set of controversial voting changes are set to take effect in Kansas on Thursday, July 1, the same day as a major ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court which could dampen the hopes of activists seeking to get the new laws thrown out in state and federal court.

Dueling state and federal lawsuits were filed last month seeking to invalidate the two laws passed by the Legislature over the veto of Gov. Laura Kelly, which they argue unconstitutionally inhibits residents to vote and infringes on their free speech rights.

Both lawsuits requested an injunction blocking the laws from taking effect — orders that haven't yet been granted, as both judges have given state officials more time to respond to the claims. That means the provisions went into effect Thursday, at least for now.

The two bills, HB 2183 and HB 2332, contain a host of provisions, most notably a limit on the number of advance ballots an individual can bring to the polls on behalf of someone else.

More:Voting rights advocates file dueling lawsuits arguing new Kansas election laws are unconstitutional

The state suit, filed by the League of Women Voters, Loud Light and Kansas Appleseed, also objected to a mandate that election officials match the signatures on an advance ballot to a person's voter registration record, limits on out-of-state mailers and a provision criminalizing any person who impersonates an election official.

A federal lawsuit, filed by national voting rights groups, takes aim specifically at the ban on out-of-state groups mailing absentee ballot applications to voters, saying it unfairly limits their efforts.

Republicans have argued in favor of the laws, citing the need to ensure safe and secure elections, despite the fact that there were no known instances of fraud in Kansas. That includes a clampdown on so-called ballot harvesting, or the mass gathering and return of ballots.

Major Supreme Court ruling ‘doesn't help’ Kansas suits

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday echoed some of those claims, as the high court ruled 6-3 to uphold a pair of Arizona voting laws that had been previously struck down by a federal appeals court. 

But Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the measures didn't violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans state and local governments from enacting laws that discriminate against racial or ethnic minorities.

One of the laws in question makes it a crime for anyone other than a postal worker, election officer or a voter's family or household members from returning an advance ballot.

That provision is more sweeping than what was enacted in Kansas, where legislators merely capped the number of advance ballots a person could return and banned lawmakers from engaging in the practice.

Still, Alito found the Arizona law "falls squarely within the heartland" of the '"usual burdens of voting,'" isn't discriminatory and can be reasonably considered to deter fraud.

"Limiting the classes of persons who may handle early ballots to those less likely to have ulterior motives deters potential fraud and improves voter confidence," Alito wrote in the opinion.

More:Activists are suing the state over new voting laws. Our podcast has what you need to know.

But both the state and federal lawsuits challenge the Kansas laws on other grounds, primarily tied to the Kansas and U.S. constitutions, meaning the ruling itself likely won't wind up being directly relevant.

“Today’s decision does not directly affect our clients' case,” Hayden Johnson, an attorney for Campaign Legal Center in the federal case, said in a statement. “We bring constitutional claims on behalf of voter engagement organizations, which are unaffected by the Supreme Court decision."

It is, however, a more general blow to the rising number of legal challenges to voting laws nationally and could be a major blow to suits in other states, most notably Georgia and Texas.

And Mark Johnson, an adjunct professor at the University of Kansas Law School and a veteran election law attorney, noted it "doesn't help either case" in Kansas.

"The Supreme Court's decision certainly will affect how the courts will approach these cases," Johnson said. "Judges will say 'Well, the Supreme Court isn't too sympathetic to these types of cases and so there is no reason we have to be.'"

Attorney General Derek Schmidt concurred with that assessment in a statement, saying he felt the Supreme Court's ruling strengthened the case for the laws.

“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision sends a strong message that states have authority to enact measures designed to ensure secure and accurate elections," Schmidt said. "The outcome of this case strengthens our arguments that courts should reject the pending legal challenges to the reasonable election-integrity reforms enacted this year by the Legislature.”

Groups halt voter registration effort due to law 

Meanwhile, the League of Women Voters and Loud Light — two of the more prominent voter advocacy groups in Kansas — have said they will stop registering voters in light of the laws taking effect.

That is in response to a provision making it a felony to impersonate an election official — something the two groups say is so vague as to put their staff at risk of prosecution.

Davis Hammet, president of Loud Light, said in a statement the group was planning on registering voters in honor of the 50th anniversary of the 26th Amendment's ratification, which allowed 18-year-olds the right to vote.

Those events would be on pause until a ruling on the injunction is made, he said.

“This new voter suppression law irreparably harms Kansans every day it remains in effect," Hammet said in a statement. "Kansans miss the opportunity to be engaged, our team misses its right to exercise free speech, and our democracy is undermined."