Kansas joins multistate challenge against ‘Bidenbucks’ voter registration scheme

Kansas and a coalition of several Republican-led states joined a lawsuit to block the Biden administration from using taxpayer-funded federal agencies to register new voters and decried it an “unlawful” overreach that could result in millions of new Democratic registrants.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, claims the Biden administration’s 2021 Executive Order 14019, which mandates federal agencies to engage in voter registration activities, oversteps the authority granted to the executive branch and infringes on state sovereignty.

“Just as it’s illegal for a Democrat administration to do this, it would be illegal for a Republican administration to do this,” Republican Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach told the Washington Examiner. “We have a system where the government itself must follow the law, and it doesn’t matter who’s sitting in the White House.”

The plaintiffs argue that this executive order, dubbed “Bidenbucks” by its critics, transforms federal agencies into de facto voter registration organizations, a role that, according to the lawsuit, should be reserved for states. They assert that this federal overreach undermines the integrity of state-run voter registration systems and threatens the balance of power between state and federal governments.

Based on analysis from the left-wing think tank Demos, which backs the order, the initiative could lead to “approximately 3 million new or updated voter registrations per year.”

This surge in voter registrations could potentially swing the election in favor of the Democrats in what is expected to be a closely contested race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

The complaint argues that the executive order may lead to more Democratic registrants by citing the historically left-leaning nature of federal agencies, which is evident from the majority of federal employees’ political donations going to Democratic candidates in past elections. This suggests that the federal bureaucracy, responsible for implementing the order, could favor the Democratic Party, according to the complaint.

But time is of the essence for this challenge, as there are only about three weeks left before early voting in some states begins, meaning much of the potential damage caused by “Bidenbucks” may already be done.

“If one of the courts were to issue a preliminary injunction, it might have some impact on this upcoming election in November,” Kobach said, contending that if their lawsuit was successful, it would more likely affect future elections rather than 2024.

As the former secretary of state for eight years in the Sunflower State, Kobach said he feels confident his state and others are right to challenge Biden’s get-out-the-vote effort, which he said “also motivated me to be part of this lawsuit.”

The case, known as Montana v. Biden, seeks to have the district court immediately declare the executive order unconstitutional and to vacate and enjoin all agency actions implementing it. In addition to Kansas and Montana, other states that have joined in the complaint include Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota.

The problems caused by the Biden executive order have left visible impacts previously reported on by the Washington Examiner earlier this summer. For example, one participating site for the get-out-the-vote initiative was the Community Health Center of Southeast Kansas, which is the largest federally qualified health center in the state that services 70,000 people, including in Oklahoma.

Footage reviewed by the Washington Examiner showed examples in which personnel at the health center touted their work turning out voters who ultimately rejected a 2022 anti-abortion referendum.

The Montana case also builds on a similar petition by Pennsylvania state lawmakers to the Supreme Court in April, asking the justices if they have the right to challenge the executive order on the basis that it serves as an incursion on legislative duty. The Supreme Court has yet to take up that challenge and signaled it would not consider the appeal until late September.

On Wednesday, the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree, who is an appointee of former President Barack Obama. It’s not immediately clear whether and when the court will act on the request to enjoin the “Bidenbucks” initiative.