League of Women Voters of Kansas v. Schwab, 539 P.3d 1022

In 2021, Kansas enacted a law (K.S.A. 25-2438[a][2]-[3]) criminalizing conduct that gives the appearance of being an election official or conduct that would cause someone to believe a person is an election official.
Four nonprofit organizations engaged in voter education and registration challenged the law, arguing it is overbroad and vague and chills protected speech.
The nonprofits regularly conduct activities where they are sometimes mistaken for election officials, despite clear disclaimers.
The district court denied a preliminary injunction, finding no substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and did not address standing.
The Kansas Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of standing, ruling there was no credible threat of prosecution against the nonprofits.
The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed only the question of whether the nonprofit plaintiffs had standing to pursue a pre-enforcement challenge to the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pre-enforcement standing under Kansas law	Plaintiffs face credible threat of prosecution, chilling speech and activities	Plaintiffs face no credible threat; statute only punishes knowingly deceptive conduct	Plaintiffs have standing; the statute's lack of clarity creates a credible threat
Scope of criminalized speech	Statute criminalizes protected, non-deceptive speech due to innocent listener mistakes	Statute targets only fraudulent, unprotected speech, not protected voter engagement activities	Statute is unclear; may criminalize protected speech due to listener mistakes
Overbreadth & Vagueness	Law is so broad/vague that it chills protected speech	Law is sufficiently clear; targets specific, knowing misrepresentation	Statute lacks necessary specificity; plaintiffs may challenge pre-enforcement
Whether actual prosecution is required	Future injury from possible prosecution is enough for standing	Actual or imminent prosecution is required for standing	Threatened injury suffices; actual prosecution not required for standing

State v. Stoll, 312 Kan. 726 (Kansas standard for injury-in-fact in standing)
Sierra Club v. Moser, 298 Kan. 22 (standing as component of subject matter jurisdiction)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (standards for restrictions on protected speech)
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (historic categories of unprotected speech)
United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (restrictions on speech; definition of fraud as unprotected speech)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (freedom of speech in public debate context)