Skip Navigation
Analysis

Uncovering Kris Kobach’s Anti-Voting History

President Trump is expected to name Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach vice-chair of a new body to investigate supposed “voter fraud” issues in the 2016 election. Kobach is hardly a household name, but for the better part of the last decade, he has been a key architect behind many of the nation’s anti-voter and anti-immigration policies.

  • Tomas Lopez
  • Jennifer L. Clark
May 11, 2017

Above: Pres­id­ent-elect Donald Trump and Kris Kobach, Kansas secret­ary of state, pose for a photo follow­ing their meet­ing in Novem­ber 2016. Getty Images.

Pres­id­ent Trump is expec­ted to name Kansas Secret­ary of State Kris Kobach vice-chair of a new “Pres­id­en­tial Commis­sion on Elec­tion Integ­rity,” a body the Pres­id­ent has long prom­ised to invest­ig­ate supposed “voter fraud” issues in the 2016 elec­tion, and which will also be charged with look­ing into other prob­lems with our voting system. Outside of Repub­lican polit­ical circles, Kobach is hardly a house­hold name. But his naming as vice-chair is very mean­ing­ful: For the better part of the last decade, he has been a key archi­tect behind many of the nation’s anti-voter and anti-immig­ra­tion policies.

Notably, Kobach has draf­ted and promoted several draconian laws, includ­ing Arizon­a’s contro­ver­sial 2010 “show me your papers” law (which requires police to determ­ine the immig­ra­tion status of someone arres­ted or detained when there is “reas­on­able suspi­cion” a person is not in the U.S. with lawful author­iz­a­tion), require­ments for docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship to register to vote (all of which have been tied up in court and admin­is­trat­ive battles for years), and strict photo ID require­ments to vote. He has also been one of the most vocal proponents of the notion that Amer­ican elec­tions are plagued by voter fraud.

Kobach endorsed Pres­id­ent Donald Trump early, in Febru­ary 2016, citing his tough stand on immig­ra­tion. “For me, the most import­ant issue in the Repub­lican pres­id­en­tial contest is immig­ra­tion and its effect on our national secur­ity,” Kobach said in a state­ment. “On that issue Mr. Trump stands head and shoulders above the other candid­ates.”[1]

But, because of the nature of his role as a secret­ary of state, Kobach’s public record in voting is extens­ive. He has a long and consist­ent history of pursu­ing severe policies despite undeni­able evid­ence that they disen­fran­chise eligible citizens, and of making exag­ger­ated voter fraud alleg­a­tions. When Pres­id­ent Trump made his sweep­ing alleg­a­tions about millions of fraud­u­lent votes being cast in the 2016 elec­tion, Kobach defen­ded the ground­less charge, which he could not marshal any evid­ence to do.[2]

As vice-chair of the new commis­sion, he will play an influ­en­tial role in shap­ing its prior­it­ies, proced­ures, and even­tual recom­mend­a­tions. His record provides a guide for what might be expec­ted.

 

Pre-Secret­ary of State Work

Kris Kobach was elec­ted Kansas secret­ary of state in 2010. Long before his elec­tion, however, Kobach had been work­ing to advance a partisan agenda with strains of anti-immig­rant rhet­oric. This history provides an import­ant back­ground to assess and inter­pret Kobach’s later actions on voting rights.

From 2001–2003, Kobach, a Harvard, Oxford, and Yale-educated attor­ney, served in the Depart­ment of Justice as a White House fellow and later as coun­sel to then-Attor­ney General John Ashcroft. While at the DOJ, Kobach was part of a policy shift that slashed the number Board of Immig­ra­tion Appeals (BIA) judges from 19 to 11.[3] Many criti­cized the shift as a means to remove more pro-immig­rant judges from the BIA, and it was ulti­mately largely reversed.

Kobach was also a key archi­tect of the DOJ’s National Secur­ity Entry-Exit Regis­tra­tion System,[4] char­ac­ter­ized by crit­ics as a Muslim registry.[5] The program targeted screened legal immig­rants from a specified list of coun­tries, all but one of which were Muslim-major­ity, for extens­ive and ongo­ing surveil­lance.[6] The program was widely criti­cized for its racial, ethnic, and reli­gious profil­ing, and was also regarded as “inef­fect­ive at produ­cing terror­ism-related convic­tions.”[7]

After the DOJ, Kobach returned to Kansas to teach law at the Univer­sity of Missouri-Kansas City, a posi­tion he kept until his success­ful 2010 campaign for secret­ary of state (which followed an unsuc­cess­ful 2004 run for Congress). For a time during his profess­or­ship, Kobach also served as chair of the Kansas Repub­lican Party. While there, he estab­lished a “loyalty commit­tee” for party members. The Kansas press described the commit­tee as a place to “weigh complaints of polit­ical miscon­duct by Repub­lic­ans.”[8] Crit­ics described it as a means to keep moder­ate Repub­lic­ans from stray­ing too far from a conser­vat­ive party line.[9]

While at his teach­ing post, he litig­ated around the coun­try in defense of anti-immig­rant legis­la­tion. Begin­ning in the mid-2000s, Kobach went to court to defend local ordin­ances passed in Pennsylvania,[10] Missouri,[11] Nebraska,[12] and Texas[13] aimed at restrict­ing the abil­ity of people without papers to go about daily life, such as rent­ing an apart­ment and seek­ing employ­ment.

During this decade, Kobach often worked with the legal arm of the immig­ra­tion restric­tion­ist policy group, Feder­a­tion for Amer­ican Immig­ra­tion Reform (FAIR), with which he remains affil­i­ated.[14] With FAIR, Kobach brought suit chal­len­ging avail­ab­il­ity of in-state tuition rates for students without immig­ra­tion papers in Kansas and Cali­for­nia.[15] During the time when Kobach was affil­i­ated with FAIR, the organ­iz­a­tion advoc­ated for Arizon­a’s Propos­i­tion 200, a wide-reach­ing state ballot initi­at­ive that required citizens to show docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship before regis­ter­ing to vote, and which required veri­fic­a­tion of citizen­ship before the distri­bu­tion of public bene­fits. The docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship require­ment was struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court as applied to indi­vidu­als who use a federal mail-in regis­tra­tion form.[16]

In the mid- to late-2000s, Kobach was the key player in a campaign to push support for anti-immig­rant laws at the state level. Most notori­ous of these was Arizon­a’s “show me your papers law,” or SB 1070. SB 1070, which Kobach is widely cred­ited with draft­ing before its passage in 2010, created a new state crime for fail­ure to have immig­ra­tion papers on your person, and author­ized police to inquire into the immig­ra­tion status of any person they stopped if they had “reas­on­able suspi­cion” the person was an undoc­u­mented immig­rant.[17] The law received wide­spread condem­na­tion for the racial profil­ing this provi­sion promoted and facil­it­ated. The Supreme Court even­tu­ally struck down several portions of the law that created new state crimes.[18]

Kobach was also a primary drafter of Alabama’s HB 56, passed in 2011.[19] HB 56 included a similar “show me your papers” provi­sion to the Arizona law,[20] a docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship require­ment before regis­ter­ing to vote,[21] and other harsh provi­sions aimed at immig­rants, such as rental bans and author­iz­a­tion to inquire into the immig­ra­tion status of school chil­dren.[22] Kobach takes credit for that law, [23] large swaths of which were struck down by an appel­late court.[24]

 

Voter Fraud Plat­form as Secret­ary of State

Kobach’s 2010 campaign for secret­ary of state promoted the idea that voter fraud was happen­ing at an alarm­ing rate all over Kansas.[25] During his campaign, Kobach alleged there were as many 2,000 people adopt­ing iden­tit­ies of dead people to vote in Kansas alone.[26] The Wichita Eagle, in an attempt to verify Kobach’s claims, looked at one county. The county’s chief elec­tion offi­cial said he knew of zero cases of attemp­ted fraud or imper­son­a­tion, and told the paper that to the extent there were any prob­lems, it was the result of errors, not some conspir­acy.[27],[28]

The sitting Secret­ary of State Ron Thorn­burgh — himself a Repub­lican — respon­ded during the campaign, noting there was “no evid­ence” to support Kobach’s claims. His office told the press that they had received “[fewer] than five” complaints, let alone proven instances, and that they thought the incid­ence of voter fraud was “very minimal.”[29]

Other Kobach claims could also not with­stand scru­tiny. For example, during his campaign he claimed there was a “very real possib­il­ity” that a ballot had been cast in the name of a deceased man named Albert Brewer. However, report­ers found Albert Brewer alive in his home outside of Wichita.[30] The voter’s father, also Albert Brewer, was deceased, however. It appears likely that Kobach mixed up the two men. Accord­ing to experts, this very issue — mixing up two indi­vidu­als with the same or similar names — is often what under­lies charges of “voter fraud.”[31]

Having laid the ground­work through disproven alleg­a­tions during his campaign, once in office, Secret­ary Kobach persuaded the legis­lature to pass a strict photo ID law, among the nation’s first.[32] The 2011 law requires voters to show a photo ID to cast a regu­lar ballot, and has been found by the nonpar­tisan Govern­ment Account­ab­il­ity Office to depress turnout in the state, partic­u­larly among African Amer­ic­ans and newly registered voters.[33]

After assum­ing office, Kobach repeatedly peti­tioned the legis­lature to give him some­thing gran­ted to no other secret­ary of state in the coun­try: the power to prosec­ute elec­tion law viol­a­tions.[34] Actual prosec­utors warned legis­lat­ors that the power to bring charges should not be handed over to someone whose office is not part of crim­inal law enforce­ment.[35] In pursuit of this prosec­utorial power, Kobach told lawmakers he knew of 18 cases of “double voting,” and that more than 100,000 people were registered to vote in Kansas and another state.[36] He reportedly claimed he knew of 100 cases of voter fraud in the state.[37] Based on these asser­tions, lawmakers gran­ted Kobach this power in 2015.[38] Yet, at the time of the announce­ment of the pres­id­en­tial commis­sion, he had obtained a grand total of nine convic­tions in just under two years.[39]

Mean­while, Kobach contin­ues to use his posi­tion as secret­ary of state to make unsup­por­ted alleg­a­tions of voter fraud. Kobach, as Kansas’s chief elec­tion offi­cial and a long­time parti­cipant in the public discus­sion over elec­tion integ­rity, knows better than anyone the truth about voter fraud: it is very, very rare. When it does happen, it is at times the work of insiders, such as party offi­cials or elec­tion volun­teers.[40] Voting by those who are not U.S. citizens — a long­time fixa­tion of Kobach’s — is, while not non-exist­ent, rare.[41] Imper­son­a­tion fraud, where one goes to the polls to cast a vote as another person, is rarer still, as all stud­ies and court opin­ions review­ing the matter have concluded. [42]

Never­the­less, the secret­ary has contin­ued to make fraud alleg­a­tions. Often­times, these asser­tions have gone far beyond Kansas. For example, in 2010, Kobach claimed 11,805 noncit­izens were registered in Color­ado and 4,947 voted. After further invest­ig­a­tion, the purpor­ted number of poten­tial noncit­izen regis­trants was reduced to 155, and the supposed number of those who voted was reduced to 35.[43]

Kobach has alleged on multiple occa­sions, includ­ing in testi­mony to Congress 2015,[44] that a 2010 Missouri state repres­ent­at­ive primary elec­tion turned on “50 Somalis” who were “unable to speak English” and were all told to cast their ballots for a single candid­ate who ended up winning by one vote. But when the losing candid­ate filed a lawsuit, a court found that “[t]he cred­ible evid­ence prove[d] that there was no voter miscon­duct and no voter fraud with regard to this elec­tion” — a ruling upheld as reas­on­able by an appeals court.[45] In his congres­sional testi­mony, Kobach attached an affi­davit from that lawsuit to back his alleg­a­tion, but failed to mention the appeals court’s assess­ment that the lower “court could reas­on­ably conclude that the evid­ence fail[ed] to show that there was any fraud prac­ticed as to even one vote.”[46]

Most recently, Kobach has suppor­ted Pres­id­ent Trump’s false claim that millions of people voted illeg­ally in the 2016 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. Trump tweeted in late Novem­ber 2016 that he, rather than Hillary Clin­ton, won the popu­lar vote “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illeg­ally.”[47] Days later, Kobach called this ficti­tious claim “abso­lutely correct,” estim­at­ing that “3.2 million aliens voted in the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion.”[48] In support of this alleg­a­tion, he cited no evid­ence from this elec­tion but instead a widely debunked 2014 study based on inter­net responses.[49] (In fact, Kobach had earlier that day certi­fied the results of the Kansas elec­tion to the governor, without any mention of instances of noncit­izen voting.)

When Trump and members of his admin­is­tra­tion alleged that thou­sands of Massachu­setts resid­ents had been bussed into New Hamp­shire during the 2016 elec­tion to cast ballots against Repub­lic­ans, it was Kobach whom they called upon to defend these asser­tions. He was unable to do so, admit­ting that he did not have evid­ence of that at the time, and point­ing instead to the number of people nation­wide who are registered to vote in more than one state, and to the hand­ful of voter fraud cases he has brought in Kansas.[50]

 

Docu­ment­ary Proof of Citizen­ship Advocacy

Kobach’s most high-profile crusade in the voting arena, however, has been over requir­ing people to provide docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship before regis­ter­ing to vote. Under federal law, indi­vidu­als regis­ter­ing to vote must affirm in writ­ing that they are a United States citizen when regis­ter­ing to vote. A false asser­tion of citizen­ship on a voter regis­tra­tion form carries both severe crim­inal penal­ties and poten­tial immig­ra­tion consequences, includ­ing denial of citizen­ship.

Nearly a decade-worth of research has revealed that voting by noncit­izens in U.S. elec­tions is negli­gible. Multiple nation­wide stud­ies have uncovered only a hand­ful of incid­ents of noncit­izens voting.[51] Based on state prosec­u­tion records, votes by noncit­izens account for between 0.0003 percent and 0.001 percent of all votes cast.[52] Elec­tion offi­cials agree there is no seri­ous prob­lem of noncit­izen voting in our elec­tions.[53] And a recent Bren­nan Center report found that 40 of 42 stud­ied juris­dic­tions repor­ted no known incid­ents of noncit­izen voting in the 2016 elec­tion.[54]

Despite the exist­ing safe­guards and the demon­strably low rate of noncit­izen voter fraud, Kobach has oper­ated for years as the coun­try’s primary advoc­ate for docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship require­ments. This means that people cannot success­fully get on the rolls without provid­ing a birth certi­fic­ate, U.S. pass­port, or other docu­ment evin­cing citizen­ship. Research shows that as many as 7 percent of Amer­ic­ans do not have such docu­ments read­ily avail­able. And those without access to such docu­ments are dispro­por­tion­ately minor­ity citizens.[55]

Arizon­a’s Propos­i­tion 200, the law that Kobach-affil­i­ated FAIR advoc­ated for, required docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship along with a host of other meas­ures targeted toward minor­ity and immig­rant popu­la­tions. This require­ment was chal­lenged all the way to the Supreme Court, which struck down the law’s docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship provi­sion as to those who used a federal regis­tra­tion form.[56]

The strict voter ID bill Kobach cham­pioned in his first year as secret­ary of state also contained docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship require­ments. Because of the Supreme Court decision on Arizon­a’s docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship law, Kobach had to ask the Elec­tion Assist­ance Commis­sion (EAC), the federal agency that over­sees what inform­a­tion goes on the federal form used to register voters, for permis­sion to enforce this require­ment on voters who use the federal form and there­fore fully imple­ment his law. But the EAC declined Kobach’s request, and similar requests from other states, multiple times.[57],[58]

However, Kobach’s luck changed when his former colleague, Brian Newby, was installed as exec­ut­ive director of the EAC in Novem­ber 2015. Prior to this role, Newby had been serving as a Kansas elec­tion offi­cial, appoin­ted by a previ­ous Kansas secret­ary of state and reappoin­ted by Kobach. Newby acknow­ledged his rela­tion­ship to Kobach in emails to the secret­ary of state, assur­ing him: “I also don’t want you think­ing that you can’t count on me.”[59] Two months into assum­ing his new posi­tion, Newby unilat­er­ally — without consult­ing the commis­sion­ers, who are stat­utor­ily tasked with decid­ing EAC policy — gave Kansas permis­sion to fully enforce its docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship law.[60]

This decision, and Kobach’s enforce­ment of the law in the 2016 elec­tion cycle, are the subject of at least four separ­ate lawsuits.[61] Over the course of its imple­ment­a­tion over the past several years, it has blocked tens of thou­sands of would-be voters from regis­ter­ing.[62]

But in 2016, several courts stepped in to help Kansans register and vote. In May, a federal court in Kansas ruled against the law and ordered Kobach’s office to register people who signed up to vote at the DMV but did not provide docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship.[63] That decision was upheld by the Tenth Circuit last fall.[64]

Despite a clear court order, however, it soon emerged that Kobach was not, in fact, regis­ter­ing these voters as required. Instead, Kobach created a separ­ate clas­si­fic­a­tion for these tens of thou­sands of would-be voters. When they went to look for them­selves on the state’s online voter regis­tra­tion look-up, their names were nowhere to be found.[65] Kobach instruc­ted elec­tion offi­cials to give these voters provi­sional ballots only, rather than regu­lar ballots.[66]

The court sched­uled a contempt hear­ing after discov­er­ing Kobach’s defi­ance, but the secret­ary avoided this process by quickly settling with the plaintiffs in the case.[67] Concur­rently, a state court ruled against Kobach’s attempt to permit citizens affected by these cases to vote only in federal elec­tions, order­ing him to allow them to cast their full ballots.[68]

 

Crosscheck

One of Kobach’s farthest reach­ing projects is a multi-state program he runs through his office: the Inter­state Voter Regis­tra­tion Crosscheck (IVRC), a data­base meant to identify people who may be registered in multiple states. On its face, IVRC serves the reas­on­able goal of help­ing states keep their voter rolls up to date. But in prac­tice, Kobach’s lead­er­ship has led IVRC to be more useful as a tool for justi­fy­ing voting restric­tions than as a way to accur­ately main­tain regis­tra­tion.

Here’s how it works, accord­ing to a 2013 present­a­tion by Kobach himself: parti­cip­at­ing states upload their voter regis­tra­tion data­bases to a server run by the Kansas secret­ary of state. His office pulls each state’s data, compares it to the data from other states to seek out duplic­ate records, and makes the results avail­able to the upload­ing state. The program also attempts to identify voters who cast ballots in more than one state.[69] And it’s run completely by Kansas. As Kobach told the Lawrence Journal-World in 2014, “it’s a state-run program that Kansas has developed and it’s a service for the whole coun­try.”[70]

Kobach’s prede­cessor star­ted IVRC in the mid-2000s, but the current secret­ary of state has over­seen its dramatic growth by promot­ing the program as an anti-fraud meas­ure. Accord­ing to that 2013 present­a­tion, which Kobach made to Indi­ana elec­tion offi­cials, IVRC compared 30 million records in 2010, 85 million in 2012 after he took office, and was projec­ted to compare 110 million records in 2014 — all reviewed by Kansas.[71]

And with Kobach at the helm, IVRC has produced prob­lem­atic results. Its meth­ods lead to false posit­ives — like in Pennsylvania, where the system repor­ted more than 300,000 poten­tial double voters.[72] In that case, Kobach reportedly conceded there were issues.[73] The system also has been found to over-repres­ent minor­ity voters. A Rolling Stone invest­ig­a­tion asked a data­base expert to review IVRC records from certain states. He found the system flagged one in six Lati­nos, one in seven Asian Amer­ic­ans, and one in nine African Amer­ic­ans as poten­tial double regis­trants in the states examined.[74]

For at least two states, the flaws were too much. Flor­ida and Oregon have with­drawn from IVRC in recent years, with the latter’s secret­ary of state explain­ing they had to drop the program because “the data we received was unre­li­able.”[75] Kobach stands by it, using its data in legis­lat­ive testi­mony to justify his restrict­ive agenda.[76] But recent history suggests that his project’s prin­cipal result is to compound errors, result­ing in thou­sands of voters improp­erly removed from the rolls. IVRC’s own outcomes indic­ate that, like other voting restric­tions, it is a solu­tion in search of prob­lem: for the many millions of records compared by Kansas around the coun­try, as of late 2013, a total of 14 had been referred to prosec­utors.[77]

***

As vice-chair of a new Pres­id­en­tial Commis­sion on Elec­tion Integ­rity, Secret­ary Kobach could have a plat­form for his exag­ger­ated and debunked claims. His record in elec­tions and voting reveals that he does not stand up for voters; rather, he has spent the last decade pursu­ing policies that are harm­ful to many Amer­ic­ans — partic­u­larly those Amer­ic­ans who are not white, who are elderly, or who are low-income. Amer­ic­ans should be wary, and should be aware of this record, now that Pres­id­ent Trump has chosen to put Kobach in this role.


 

 

[1] Press Release, “Donald J. Trump Endorsed by Kansas Secret­ary of State Kris Kobach,” Feb. 29, 2016, https://www.donald­jtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-endorsed-by-kansas-secret­ary-of-state-kris-kobach.

[2] http://www.real­clear­polit­ics.com/video/2017/02/13/cnns_kate_bolduan_vs_kris_kobach_six_cases_does_not_rampant_voter_fraud_make.html

[3] John D. Ashcroft, Kris W. Kobach, A More Perfect System: The 2002 Reforms of the Board of Immig­ra­tion Appeals, 58 Duke Law Journal 1911, 1996 n. 28 (article co-authored by Kobach and former Attor­ney General John Ashcroft defend­ing their changes to the BIA), http://schol­ar­ship.law.duke.edu/cgi/view­con­tent.cgi?article=1427&context=dlj ; South­ern Poverty Law Center, When Mr. Kobach Comes to Town: Nativ­ist Laws and the Communit­ies They Damage 8, https://www.splcen­ter.org/sites/default/files/Kobach_Comes_to_Town_final_web.pdf.

[4] Kris W. Kobach, Offi­cial Resume (under exper­i­ence, described as “archi­tect of anti-terror­ism programs after 9/11/2001, includ­ing the National Secur­ity Entry-Exit Regis­tra­tion System [NSEERS], which led to the appre­hen­sion of numer­ous suspec­ted terror­ists.”).

[6] See Regis­tra­tion & Monit­or­ing of Certain Nonim­mig­rants, 67 Fed. Reg. 52,584 (Dept. of Justice Aug. 12, 2002) (rule estab­lish­ing the NSEERS system and the first group of included coun­tries); 67 Fed. Reg. 67,766 (Dept. of Justice Nov. 6, 2002) (estab­lish­ing the second group of included coun­tries); 67 Fed. Reg. 77,642 (Dept. of Justice Dec. 18, 2002) (estab­lish­ing the third group of included coun­tries); 68 Fed. Reg. 2,363 (Dept. of Justice Jan. 16, 2003) (estab­lish­ing the fourth group of included coun­tries). For a complete list of the included coun­tries, see Rajah v. Muka­sey, 544 F.3d 427, 433 n.3 (Second Circuit decision uphold­ing NSEERS program).

[7] Doris Meiss­ner & Donald Kerwin, Migra­tion Policy Insti­tute, DHS and Immig­ra­tion: Taking Stock and Correct­ing Course 88, http://www.migra­tion­policy.org/pubs/DHS_Feb09.pdf. See also Amer­ican-Arab Anti-Discrim­in­a­tion Commit­tee, ADC and 200 Organ­iz­a­tions Demand End to NSEERS, Nov. 22, 2016 (fact sheet page describ­ing “zero known convic­tions for terror­ism-related crimes”).

[10] See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 724 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2013) (federal appeals court decision inval­id­at­ing Kobach-authored ordin­ance concern­ing employ­ment and hous­ing for undoc­u­mented immig­rants, for which Kobach led legal defense).

[11] See Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., 567 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2009) (federal appeals court decision uphold­ing Kobach-authored ordin­ance, for which Kobach led legal defense). Upon the court’s ruling, however, the mayor of Valley Park, Missouri announced the city’s inten­tion to not enforce the ordin­ance. See http://www.stltoday.com/news/article_8f6a2242–9794–59c5–8668-d6aa1171c62b.html.

[12] See Keller v. City of Fremont, 719 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2013) (federal appeals court decision uphold­ing Kobach-authored ordin­ance, for which Kobach led legal defense). Follow­ing the court’s decision, the city faced chal­lenges enfor­cing the ordin­ance. See http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/catch—­keeps-fremont-from-acting-on-contro­ver­sial-hous­ing-ordin­ance/article_34091da3-ddd3–5643–8076-f474f­d328260.html.

[13] See Villas at Park­side Part­ners v. City of Farm­ers Branch, 726 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (federal appeals court decision inval­id­at­ing Kobach-authored ordin­ance concern­ing hous­ing for undoc­u­mented immig­rants, for which Kobach led legal defense).

[14] http://www.irli.org/legal-team (list­ing Kobach as “Of Coun­sel”)

[15] See Martinez v. Regents of the Univer­sity of Cali­for­nia, 50 241 P.3d 855 (Cal. 2010) (Cali­for­nia Supreme Court decision reject­ing chal­lenge to Cali­for­nia stat­ute count­ing certain non-citizens as resid­ents for tuition purposes, to which Kobach led chal­lenge); Day v. Bond, 500 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2007) (Federal appeals court ruling reject­ing chal­lenge to Kansas law count­ing certain non-citizens as resid­ents for tuition purposes, to which Kobach led chal­lenge). For further inform­a­tion on the Cali­for­nia lawsuit and decision, see http://www.sandiegounion­tribune.com/sdut-court-upholds-in-state-tuition-for-some-immig­rants-2010nov15-story.html. For further inform­a­tion on the Kansas lawsuit, see http://cjon­line.com/stor­ies/071904/bre_tuition.shtml#.WMAdl28r­Jpg (article from the filing of the suit, at which time Kobach declared the case a “slam dunk”), http://cjon­line.com/stor­ies/070208/sta_298671333.shtml#.WMAeNG8r­Jpg (article follow­ing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to not review the Tenth Circuit’s ruling against Kobach’s chal­lenge).

[16] Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Coun­cil of Arizona, 133 S.Ct 2247 (2013) (barring Arizona from unilat­er­ally apply­ing its docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship require­ment to indi­vidu­als regis­ter­ing to vote using the Federal Mail-In Voter Regis­tra­tion Form).

[17] Kobach was cred­ited in 2010 for his role in shap­ing SB 1070, http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/apr/27/kansan-kris-kobach-helped-write-contro­ver­sial-ariz/ (news article describ­ing Kobach has having “helped write the law”), and also described himself as such in a New York Times op-ed defend­ing the law. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opin­ion/29kobach.html?hp

[18] Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

[19] Kobach was cred­ited in the press for his draft­ing work on HB 56. See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/us/04im­mig.html. His role was also acknow­ledged by the bill’s lead spon­sors, one of whom noted that “he played a very big role” in shap­ing the bill’s language, and another of whom called him a “godsend.” http://blog.al.com/live/2011/10/kris_kobach_the_kansas_lawyer_1.html

[20] Ala. Code 31–13–12

[21] Ala. Code 31–13–28 (requir­ing indi­vidu­als regis­ter­ing to vote to provide docu­ment­ary proof of their United States citizen­ship). This require­ment remains the law in Alabama but as of this post has yet to be fully imple­men­ted.

[22] See, e.g., Ala. Code 31–13– 13 (making it unlaw­ful to “harbor” an undoc­u­mented immig­rant); 31–13–27 (requir­ing inquiry into the immig­ra­tion status of newly enrolled public school students and their parents); 31–13–29 (prohib­it­ing state courts from recog­niz­ing contracts between a party and an undoc­u­mented immig­rant).

[23] http://blog.al.com/live/2011/10/kris_kobach_the_kansas_lawyer_1.html

[24] U.S. v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012); Hispanic Interest Coali­tion of Alabama v. Governor of Alabama, 691 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2012) (jointly issued federal appeals court decisions respect­ively strik­ing down large portions of Alabama immig­ra­tion law).

[25] https://www.kssos.org/forms/commu­nic­a­tion/canvassing_kansas/june11.pdf, p. 4 (“A major theme of the campaign for Secret­ary of State in 2010 was secur­ing elec­tions . . . .”)

[26] http://cjon­line.com/news/state/2010–10–29/kobach_slips_on_voting_claim

[27] http://www.kansas.com/news/polit­ics-govern­ment/article1054755.html

[28] http://www.kansas.com/news/polit­ics-govern­ment/article1054755.html

[30] http://cjon­line.com/news/state/2010–10–29/kobach_slips_on_voting_claim

[31] http://www.bren­nan­cen­ter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf

[32] http://www.gotvo­terid.com/; http://www.ksle­gis­lature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/meas­ures/docu­ments/hb2067_enrolled.pdf

[33] United States Govern­ment Account­ab­il­ity Office, Issues Related to State Voter Iden­ti­fic­a­tion Laws 48 (“decreases in genera elec­tion turnout in Kansas and Tennessee from 2008 to 2012 beyond decreases in compar­ison states are attrib­ut­able to changes in voter ID require­ments), 52 (discuss­ing compar­at­ive turnout reduc­tions in Kansas among African-Amer­ic­ans and voters registered for less than one year), https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf. See http://blogs.wsj.com/wash­wire/2014/10/08/gao-study-finds-voter-id-laws-reduced-turnout-in-tennessee-kansas/.

[34] SB 34 (Kansas 2015), avail­able at https://legis­can.com/KS/text/SB34/2015.

[35] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/prosec­utors-ques­tion-kobach-claims-voter-fraud-kansas

[36] Testi­mony of Kris W. Kobach, Commit­tee on the Judi­ciary, Kansas Senate (S.B. 34), Janu­ary 29, 2015 2–3 (“Janu­ary 2015 Kansas Senate Testi­mony”) (citing IVRC data for propos­i­tion that Kansas is vulner­able to double voting, from testi­mony in support of legis­la­tion to grant prosec­utorial powers to Secret­ary of State), avail­able at http://www.ksle­gis­lature.org/li_2016/b2015_16/commit­tees/ctte_s_jud_1/docu­ments/testi­mony/20150129_02.pdf.

[38] SB 34 (Kansas 2015), avail­able at https://legis­can.com/KS/text/SB34/2015.

[40] Myrna Pérez, Bren­nan Center for Justice, Elec­tion Integ­rity: A Pro-Voter Agenda 1–2, 16–17 (discuss­ing histor­ical and recent cases of elec­tion crimes commit­ted by offi­cials or volun­teers), https://www.bren­nan­cen­ter.org/sites/default/files/public­a­tions/Elec­tion_Integ­rity.pdf.

[41] http://www.bren­nan­cen­ter.org/analysis/analysis-noncit­izen-voting-vanish­ingly-rare

[42] https://www.bren­nan­cen­ter.org/analysis/debunk­ing-voter-fraud-myth

[43] This incid­ent was cited in an expert report filed by plaintiffs chal­len­ging Kobach’s docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship prac­tices. See https://www.aclukan­sas.org/sites/default/files/field_docu­ments/fish_v._kobach_-_expert_report_of_dr._lorraine_minnite.pdf

[44] Testi­mony of Kris W. Kobach, United States House of Repres­ent­at­ives, Commit­tee on Over­sight and Govern­ment Reform, Subcom­mit­tee on National Secur­ity and Subcom­mit­tee on Health Care, Bene­fits, and Admin­is­trat­ive Rules, Febru­ary 12, 2015 2–3, avail­able at https://over­sight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Kobach-Testi­mony-House-OGR-21215.pdf; Testi­mony of Kris W. Kobach, Commit­tee on Elec­tions, Kansas House (H.B. 2437), Febru­ary 1, 2012 2, avail­able at http://www.ksle­gis­lature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/commit­tees/misc/ctte_h_electns_1_20120201_06_other.pdfSee Yael T. Abouhalkah, Beware Kobach’s lie about KC voter fraud case, Kansas City Star, July 5, 2013, http://www.kansas­city.com/opin­ion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article322569/Beware-Kobach’s-lie-about-KC-voter-fraud-case.html.

[45] Royster v. Rizzo, 326 S.W.3d 104, 110 (Mo. App. 2010).

[46] Royster, 326 S.W.3d at 110.

[47] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/polit­ics/trump-adviser-steps-up-sear­ing-attack-on-romney.html?_r=0

[48] http://www.kansas.com/news/polit­ics-govern­ment/elec­tion/article117933098.html

[49] http://www.kansas­city.com/news/polit­ics-govern­ment/article117957143.html

[50] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjm6d­P0UM9Q

[51] http://www.bren­nan­cen­ter.org/analysis/analysis-noncit­izen-voting-vanish­ingly-rare

[52] Id.

[53] http://www.bren­nan­cen­ter.org/quotes-on-voter-fraud

[55] https://www.bren­nan­cen­ter.org/analysis/citizens-without-proof

[56] http://www.scotus­b­log.com/case-files/cases/arizona-v-the-inter-tribal-coun­cil-of-arizona-inc/

[57] https://www.wash­ing­ton­post.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/19/how-kansas-has-become-a-battle­ground-state-for-voting-rights/?utm_term=.31bfe7c5e5c3

[58] https://www.bren­nan­cen­ter.org/legal-work/league-women-voters-v-newby

[59] https://www.wash­ing­ton­post.com/world/national-secur­ity/the-conser­vat­ive-gladi­ator-from-kansas-behind-restrict­ive-voting-laws/2016/04/06/57ad18d2-eaed-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?utm_term=.6f522c746fd5

[61] As of this post, the federal voter regis­tra­tion form does not include the docu­ment­ary proof of citizen­ship require­ment for Kansas voters using that form, per a D.C. Circuit ruling. League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

[62] http://cjon­line.com/news-legis­lature-local-state/2015–09–02/kris-kobachs-plan-delete-more-30000-voter-regis­tra­tion 

[63] Fish v. Kobach, 189 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (D. Kan. 2016).

[64] Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016).

[65] http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/elec­tion­law/litig­a­tion/docu­ments/Fish-MemoIn­Sup­port092316.pdf

[66] http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/elec­tion­law/litig­a­tion/docu­ments/Fish-MemoIn­Sup­port092316.pdf

[67] http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/elec­tion­law/litig­a­tion/docu­ments/Fish-Status­Re­port092916.pdfSee https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/avoid­ing-contempt-court-kansas-secret­ary-state-kris-kobach-says-hell-let-people

[68] Brown v. Kobach, No. 2016-CV-550 (Kan. D. Ct. Shawnee Cty. Nov. 4, 2016). Decision avail­able at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_docu­ment/memor­andum_decision_brown_v_kobach_2016.pdfSee http://talk­ing­points­memo.com/muck­raker/court-knocks-kobach-in-case-linked-to-ks-proof-of-citizen­ship-voter-require­ment.

[73] Id (“Kansas admits in docu­ment­a­tion provided to the Pennsylvania secret­ary of state that the cross-checks produce multiple false posit­ives among the hundreds of thou­sands of possible duplic­ates.”).

[74] http://www.rolling­stone.com/polit­ics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890

[75] http://www.rolling­stone.com/polit­ics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890

[76] Janu­ary 2015 Kansas Senate Testi­mony, supra n. 36, 2–3.