The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on October 14, 2026, that a Kansas law restricting the pre-filling of mail ballot applications is constitutional. This decision reverses a previous injunction issued by a lower court, which had found the law infringed on the First Amendment rights of organizations promoting voter participation. The ruling affects organizations like VoteAmerica and the Voter Participation Center, which advocate for increased voter engagement, especially among underserved communities.
The case, VoteAmerica v. Schwab (No. 25-3138), stems from a dispute over a Kansas law that prohibits private parties from partially filling out mail ballot applications before sending them to voters. The law was enacted to reduce voter confusion and administrative burdens on election officials. However, VoteAmerica and the Voter Participation Center argued that the law violated their free speech rights by limiting their ability to encourage mail-in voting.
In 2020, the Voter Participation Center (VPC) sent out approximately 510,000 mail ballot applications to Kansas voters, which included partially pre-filled information. This method aimed to increase voter participation, particularly among younger voters and voters of color. However, many voters received applications with incorrect information, leading to confusion and additional burdens on election officials. In response to the issues raised during the 2020 election, the Kansas legislature passed H.B. 2332, which included the prohibition against pre-filling mail ballot applications.
The dispute reached the Tenth Circuit after the district court initially granted an injunction against the law, ruling it violated the First Amendment. However, upon appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed this decision, stating that the law did not demonstrate an improper purpose and should be evaluated under intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. The court found that the Kansas legislature's stated interests in reducing voter confusion and improving election administration were legitimate and not inherently tied to suppressing speech.
The court noted, "The district court found an improper purpose without evidence from the Prohibition’s justifications, text, or legislative history; it instead inferred an improper purpose from the national political debate on mail-in voting. That finding was in error." This ruling indicates that the law does not discriminate against viewpoints and is constitutional under the First Amendment.
The impact of this ruling is significant for organizations advocating for mail-in voting and voter engagement. It sets a precedent that states can implement regulations on mail-in voting procedures without infringing on free speech rights, provided they can demonstrate legitimate governmental interests. This decision may embolden other states to enact similar laws aimed at regulating mail-in voting processes.
Looking ahead, the plaintiffs in this case may consider appealing the ruling, although details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence future legislation regarding mail-in voting and the extent to which states can regulate the process while balancing the rights of organizations that promote voter participation.