Netanyahu says ready to implement Israel-Lebanon ceasefireAfter institutions for people with disabilities close, graves are at risk of being forgotten5 male grooming trends that shaped 2024, plus what to look out for in 2025
RADNOR — Having landed his dream job once, Eric Roedl wasn’t sure at first what to make of the chance to do it again. It would’ve taken a lot to get the Deputy Athletic Director at the University of Oregon to leave Eugene, where he’s spent 13 years. The chance to lead not just any athletic department but that of his alma mater was sufficient to bring him back to the Main Line. Roedl was introduced Tuesday as Villanova’s Vice President and Director of Athletics. He replaces Mark Jackson, who was hired in the fall to become the AD at Northwestern. The move brings Roedl home. He played tennis at Villanova, graduating in 1997. His wife Nicole is a 1998 graduate of Villanova. Roedl spent eight years in athletic administration at Temple, then a stint at William & Mary before venturing west to a power conference behemoth in Oregon. While Villanova President Rev. Peter M. Donohue joked at Tuesday’s press conference that he hoped Roedl could bring a slice of the Ducks’ massive budget East with him, Roedl will carry some tangible aspects managing such a big organization to the mission-driven challenge at Villanova. “My big takeaways from Oregon are a commitment to building a championship culture in everything we do, very high standards, full-fledged commitment to holistic student-athlete development, always trying to be out in front when it comes to NCAA deregulation and the things that we can do to provide support for our student-athletes, and just creating a great environment for our student-athletes and our staff,” Roedl said. “People talk about resources and they talk about money, but to me, what really is the difference maker in building successful programs – and I know you know this here at Villanova – it’s about the people and how you operate in the culture.” Both Donohue and Roedl acknowledged several times the changing landscape of college athletics. Athletes are able to earn money for their name, image and likeness, and the House settlement requires colleges to share revenue with athletes. The pressure of those changes will exert much different responses at Roedl’s former employer, a public land-grant institution backed by the deep pockets of Nike’s founder, than at a small, private, Augustinian university. Roedl highlighted those differences in asserting how his approach would meet those challenges. “We have an exciting and compelling vision for the future,” Roedl said in prepared remarks. “Villanova has a deep belief in the role and value of college athletics as a part of this community. Nothing brings people together like sports, and I think Nova Nation is a true testament to that. ... Our priorities will be focused on what’s in the best interest of this university and alignment with our Augustinian values, and certainly what is in the best interest of the health, well-being and success of our student-athletes.” Roedl talked around a question about the basketball program’s recent struggles, beyond a pledge to “continue to innovate and strategically invest” in the men’s and women’s programs. The Wildcats, who won national titles in 2016 and 2018 under Jay Wright, have failed to make the NCAA Tournament in consecutive seasons under Kyle Neptune. Roedl won’t formally take over until January, but he’ll be monitoring how the basketball season progresses, with on-court performance as one of several factors in determining Neptune’s fate. Roedl is transitioning from a program that enjoys a revenue-generating football program to a Football Championship Subdivision squad that is a much different economic model. But he extolled the virtues of that competitive format for Villanova, which begins the FCS playoffs on Saturday. “I think the FCS football model is terrific,” Roedl said. “I love the fact that you’re competing throughout the year, and you’re competing to get into the playoffs, and you can play your way through. The CFP finally came around to that type of a model. It took a while, but the financial model is different, and football means different things to different schools. “There’s a lot of benefit to having an FCS football program and all the things that it brings to your campus. The team represents this university really well. We bring in tremendous, talented student-athletes from all over the country to come in here and compete for Villanova, and that’s a program that I really look forward to supporting and being a part of.” Roedl played a sport in college that, like many Olympic sports, feels economically endangered at the collegiate level. He calls his student-athlete experience “transformational,” in both his career and his life. He used the term “broad-based excellence” on several occasions to illustrate a goal of elevating all of Villanova’s 24 varsity programs, in terms of on-field success and off-field sustainability. In lamenting that “college athletics has become a little bit more transactional,” Roedl is endeavoring to lead Villanova through a middle path. If recruiting talent becomes a bidding war against bigger and better resourced schools, they don’t necessarily have the capital to compete directly. So the name of the game is to provide something more than just what happens on the field, whether that’s academically or via the community. “To me, one of the things that’s most special about college athletics is all the opportunity that it provides to young people to dream and be a part of a university athletic program, and that’s something that we’re going to be fully committed to here at Villanova,” he said. “We’re going to work our tails off to go out and find the resources. It’s a new time, and there’s going to be more pressure on each of our programs to find ways to be sustainable, to continue to be able to provide those opportunities. There’s a lot of pressure on resources right now post-House settlement and we look forward to engaging in the communities around all of our sports to continue to have them be thriving and successful.”Former lawmaker Mary Murphy, longest-serving woman in Minnesota House, suffers stroke
Dollar Tree CEO reveals the most popular items for $1.25 that shoppers ‘need’ this Christmas season
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there's one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas. That's because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory. The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn't been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn't touch it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.” Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas. “The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.” Kansas' experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year. Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election. Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions' provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible. To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught. “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press. After Kansas residents challenged their state's law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That's an issue Congress could resolve. The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn't justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year. In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.” Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved. “The technological challenge of how quickly can you verify someone’s citizenship is getting easier,” Kobach said. “As time goes on, it will get even easier.” The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020. But in August, it split 5-4 in allowing Arizona to continue enforcing its law for voting in state and local elections while a legal challenge goes forward. Seeing the possibility of a different Supreme Court decision in the future, U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt says states and Congress should pursue proof-of-citizenship requirements. Schmidt was the Kansas attorney general when his state's law was challenged. "If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different," he said in an interview. But voting rights advocates dismiss the idea that a legal challenge would turn out differently. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who fought the Kansas law, said opponents now have a template for a successful court fight. “We know the people we can call," Johnson said. “We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted "a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.” Initially, the Kansas requirement's impacts seemed to fall most heavily on politically unaffiliated and young voters. As of fall 2013, 57% of the voters blocked from registering were unaffiliated and 40% were under 30. But Fish was in his mid-30s, and six of the nine residents who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older. Three even produced citizenship documents and still didn’t get registered, according to court documents. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” Fish said. He was supposed to produce his birth certificate when he sought to register in 2014 while renewing his Kansas driver's license at an office in a strip mall in Lawrence. A clerk wouldn't accept the copy Fish had of his birth certificate. He still doesn't know where to find the original, having been born on an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Several of the people joining Fish in the lawsuit were veterans, all born in the U.S., and Fish said he was stunned that they could be prevented from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said millions of Americans haven't traveled outside the U.S. and don't have passports that might act as proof of citizenship, or don't have ready access to their birth certificates. She and other voting rights advocates are skeptical that there are administrative fixes that will make a proof-of-citizenship law run more smoothly today than it did in Kansas a decade ago. “It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life,” Avore said. “It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country.” Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.
New Year's eve plans: What are top trending New Year's resolutions?
After closures in some other states, institutions’ cemeteries were abandoned and became overgrown with weeds and brush. Subscribe to continue reading this article. Already subscribed? To login in, click here.Dorchester Minerals CFO Leslie Moriyama buys $414,640 in stock
Geode Capital Management LLC raised its position in shares of NuScale Power Co. ( NYSE:SMR – Free Report ) by 21.0% during the 3rd quarter, according to the company in its most recent 13F filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The firm owned 1,829,843 shares of the company’s stock after purchasing an additional 317,285 shares during the quarter. Geode Capital Management LLC owned 0.73% of NuScale Power worth $21,194,000 at the end of the most recent quarter. Several other large investors also recently added to or reduced their stakes in SMR. State Street Corp lifted its position in shares of NuScale Power by 10.2% in the third quarter. State Street Corp now owns 1,674,995 shares of the company’s stock worth $19,396,000 after purchasing an additional 154,368 shares in the last quarter. Van ECK Associates Corp lifted its position in NuScale Power by 90.0% in the 3rd quarter. Van ECK Associates Corp now owns 1,235,457 shares of the company’s stock worth $14,307,000 after buying an additional 585,292 shares in the last quarter. Charles Schwab Investment Management Inc. lifted its position in NuScale Power by 212.4% in the 3rd quarter. Charles Schwab Investment Management Inc. now owns 677,248 shares of the company’s stock worth $7,843,000 after buying an additional 460,487 shares in the last quarter. UBS AM a distinct business unit of UBS ASSET MANAGEMENT AMERICAS LLC boosted its stake in shares of NuScale Power by 57.2% during the 3rd quarter. UBS AM a distinct business unit of UBS ASSET MANAGEMENT AMERICAS LLC now owns 351,777 shares of the company’s stock valued at $4,074,000 after buying an additional 128,012 shares during the period. Finally, Bank of New York Mellon Corp grew its holdings in shares of NuScale Power by 97.3% during the 2nd quarter. Bank of New York Mellon Corp now owns 278,513 shares of the company’s stock valued at $3,256,000 after acquiring an additional 137,382 shares in the last quarter. 78.37% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds. Wall Street Analysts Forecast Growth Several brokerages recently issued reports on SMR. Craig Hallum increased their price objective on NuScale Power from $16.00 to $21.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a report on Thursday, October 17th. CLSA started coverage on NuScale Power in a research note on Friday, September 13th. They set an “outperform” rating and a $11.00 price target for the company. One analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, one has given a hold rating and five have assigned a buy rating to the company’s stock. According to MarketBeat.com, the company currently has an average rating of “Moderate Buy” and a consensus target price of $10.39. Insider Activity In related news, insider Robert K. Temple sold 115,866 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction on Wednesday, October 16th. The shares were sold at an average price of $18.20, for a total transaction of $2,108,761.20. Following the completion of the sale, the insider now directly owns 14,054 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $255,782.80. This represents a 89.18 % decrease in their position. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is accessible through this hyperlink . Also, VP Jacqueline F. Engel sold 18,186 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction on Friday, November 29th. The stock was sold at an average price of $29.00, for a total transaction of $527,394.00. Following the transaction, the vice president now directly owns 3,801 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $110,229. This represents a 82.71 % decrease in their position. The disclosure for this sale can be found here . In the last quarter, insiders have sold 202,610 shares of company stock valued at $3,528,780. Insiders own 1.96% of the company’s stock. NuScale Power Price Performance NYSE SMR opened at $19.51 on Friday. NuScale Power Co. has a fifty-two week low of $1.88 and a fifty-two week high of $32.30. The stock’s 50-day moving average is $22.77 and its two-hundred day moving average is $14.93. The firm has a market cap of $4.98 billion, a P/E ratio of -20.54 and a beta of 1.33. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.26, a current ratio of 2.24 and a quick ratio of 2.24. NuScale Power Profile ( Free Report ) NuScale Power Corporation engages in the development and sale of modular light water reactor nuclear power plants to supply energy for electrical generation, district heating, desalination, hydrogen production, and other process heat applications. It offers NuScale Power Module (NPM), a water reactor that can generate 77 megawatts of electricity (MWe); and VOYGR power plant designs for three facility sizes that are capable of housing from one to four and six or twelve NPMs. Featured Stories Five stocks we like better than NuScale Power NYSE Stocks Give Investors a Variety of Quality Options Buffett Takes the Bait; Berkshire Buys More Oxy in December Stock Market Upgrades: What Are They? Top 3 ETFs to Hedge Against Inflation in 2025 ESG Stocks, What Investors Should Know These 3 Chip Stock Kings Are Still Buys for 2025 Receive News & Ratings for NuScale Power Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for NuScale Power and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there's one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas. That's because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory. The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn't been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn't touch it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.” Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas. “The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.” A small problem, but wide support for a fix Kansas' experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year. Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election. Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions' provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible. To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught. “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press. Why the courts rejected the Kansas citizenship rule After Kansas residents challenged their state's law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That's an issue Congress could resolve. The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn't justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year. In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.” Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved. “The technological challenge of how quickly can you verify someone’s citizenship is getting easier,” Kobach said. “As time goes on, it will get even easier.” Would the Kansas law stand today? The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020. But in August, it split 5-4 in allowing Arizona to continue enforcing its law for voting in state and local elections while a legal challenge goes forward. Seeing the possibility of a different Supreme Court decision in the future, U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt says states and Congress should pursue proof-of-citizenship requirements. Schmidt was the Kansas attorney general when his state's law was challenged. "If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different," he said in an interview. But voting rights advocates dismiss the idea that a legal challenge would turn out differently. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who fought the Kansas law, said opponents now have a template for a successful court fight. “We know the people we can call," Johnson said. “We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted "a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.” Born in Illinois but unable to register in Kansas Initially, the Kansas requirement's impacts seemed to fall most heavily on politically unaffiliated and young voters. As of fall 2013, 57% of the voters blocked from registering were unaffiliated and 40% were under 30. But Fish was in his mid-30s, and six of the nine residents who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older. Three even produced citizenship documents and still didn’t get registered, according to court documents. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” Fish said. He was supposed to produce his birth certificate when he sought to register in 2014 while renewing his Kansas driver's license at an office in a strip mall in Lawrence. A clerk wouldn't accept the copy Fish had of his birth certificate. He still doesn't know where to find the original, having been born on an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Several of the people joining Fish in the lawsuit were veterans, all born in the U.S., and Fish said he was stunned that they could be prevented from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said millions of Americans haven't traveled outside the U.S. and don't have passports that might act as proof of citizenship, or don't have ready access to their birth certificates. She and other voting rights advocates are skeptical that there are administrative fixes that will make a proof-of-citizenship law run more smoothly today than it did in Kansas a decade ago. “It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life,” Avore said. “It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country.” ___ Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report. John Hanna, The Associated PressTOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there's one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas. That's because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory. The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn't been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn't touch it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.” Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas. “The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.” Kansas' experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year. Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election. Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions' provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible. To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught. “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press. After Kansas residents challenged their state's law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That's an issue Congress could resolve. The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn't justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year. In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.” Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved. “The technological challenge of how quickly can you verify someone’s citizenship is getting easier,” Kobach said. “As time goes on, it will get even easier.” The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020. But in August, it split 5-4 in allowing Arizona to continue enforcing its law for voting in state and local elections while a legal challenge goes forward. Seeing the possibility of a different Supreme Court decision in the future, U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt says states and Congress should pursue proof-of-citizenship requirements. Schmidt was the Kansas attorney general when his state's law was challenged. "If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different," he said in an interview. But voting rights advocates dismiss the idea that a legal challenge would turn out differently. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who fought the Kansas law, said opponents now have a template for a successful court fight. “We know the people we can call," Johnson said. “We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted "a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.” Initially, the Kansas requirement's impacts seemed to fall most heavily on politically unaffiliated and young voters. As of fall 2013, 57% of the voters blocked from registering were unaffiliated and 40% were under 30. But Fish was in his mid-30s, and six of the nine residents who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older. Three even produced citizenship documents and still didn’t get registered, according to court documents. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” Fish said. He was supposed to produce his birth certificate when he sought to register in 2014 while renewing his Kansas driver's license at an office in a strip mall in Lawrence. A clerk wouldn't accept the copy Fish had of his birth certificate. He still doesn't know where to find the original, having been born on an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Several of the people joining Fish in the lawsuit were veterans, all born in the U.S., and Fish said he was stunned that they could be prevented from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said millions of Americans haven't traveled outside the U.S. and don't have passports that might act as proof of citizenship, or don't have ready access to their birth certificates. She and other voting rights advocates are skeptical that there are administrative fixes that will make a proof-of-citizenship law run more smoothly today than it did in Kansas a decade ago. “It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life,” Avore said. “It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country.” Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.