Earlier this summer, the Post asked our readers what issues you wanted to hear candidates in federal, state and local races address leading up to the Nov. 3 election.

Based on that feedback, we developed a five-item questionnaire centering the issues most important to residents across Johnson County.

Each day this week, we’ll publish the candidates’ responses to one question. So far, we’ve published responses on early voting sites, and voter data and Washington.

Today, we’re publishing candidates’ responses to the following question:

On Nov. 3, Kansans will vote on a constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote. Supporters say the move is necessary to clarify who gets to vote, while critics say it’s redundant and could open the door to new hurdles for voter registration. Do you support this amendment? If it passes, would you seek to require proof of citizenship at registration again? How would you protect eligible voters?

Below are the answers the Post received from candidates on the issue:

Pat Proctor (Republican)

I sponsored and passed the Citizens-Only Voting amendment. Currently, our constitution says “every citizen” can vote, not “only citizens” can vote. California, Vermont, and Maryland, among others, have this exact same language in their constitution. And they all allow non-citizens to vote. This amendment closes this loophole and protects our laws prohibiting non-citizen voting. It in no way changes the federal prohibition on documentary proof of citizenship, which has been ruled unconstitutional under the US constitution. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to defeat the amendment to leave the door open to non-citizen voting.

Jennifer Day (Democratic)

I support the principle that only U.S. citizens should vote in Kansas elections. Citizenship is already a requirement for voting in Kansas. My opponent, Pat Proctor, is focused on pushing this amendment which is redundant, while we should be focused on the issues that aren’t already solved and that Kansans want addressed, including affordable housing, accessible healthcare, lower gas prices, fully funded schools, secure and accessible elections, and supporting our farmers and agricultural communities.

If the amendment passes, I would want to ensure it is not used to disenfranchise eligible Kansas citizens by creating unnecessary barriers to registration. That includes making sure eligible voters can navigate situations where their records may not match, such as women who have changed their last name after marriage. We should have clear, reasonable processes that allow eligible citizens to establish their citizenship without being unfairly blocked from registering or voting because of a paperwork issue.

Protecting the integrity of our elections and protecting eligible voters are not competing goals. We can do both. My responsibility as Secretary of State would be to make sure every eligible Kansan can register and vote while maintaining strong safeguards around who is eligible to participate.

Scott Morgan (United Kansas)

I oppose the amendment and will vote no.

Only citizens should vote and the Kansas Constitution already says that a voter must be a United States citizen. I do not believe changing that language is necessary, and I am concerned that the amendment could become the basis for imposing additional barriers to registration.

That raises a basic question: If this is merely a clarification and does not change who is eligible to vote, why is a constitutional amendment necessary? If it does change the legal meaning of voter eligibility, Kansans deserve to know what additional requirements could follow from it, including whether voters could someday be required to produce additional documentation to establish eligibility.

If it passes, I would not seek to revive Kansas’ former documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement. Eligible citizens should not lose their ability to register because they cannot readily produce a birth certificate, passport or other document.

Citizenship is a requirement for voting, and the state should use reliable government information to maintain accurate voter rolls. But we should distinguish between identifying genuine eligibility problems and requiring eligible Kansans to prove citizenship again. Election laws should protect both the integrity of the voter rolls and the right of eligible citizens to participate.

Coming up:

Tomorrow, we will publish the candidates’ responses to the following question:

This is a partisan race, but the job of secretary of state is to ensure elections are run fairly for all regardless of party affiliation. How would you assure voters of all parties of your impartiality in running state elections and certifying results?