Mo. House panel adopts voter photo ID requirement

Originally published February 5, 2013 at 12:07 p.m., updated February 5, 2013 at 11:59 p.m.

A voter photo identification requirement endorsed by a Missouri House committee was derided Tuesday by the head of the Legislative Black Caucus as a “voter suppression” measure akin to a poll tax.

The House Elections Committee approved a state constitutional amendment Tuesday that would ask voters whether to allow a photo ID requirement. The committee also approved a separate bill that would implement the constitutional amendment by requiring that voters show government-issued photo identification before casting ballots.

A photo ID already is one of several options Missourians can show when going to vote, but it is not required. Voters also can identify themselves through such things as utility bills or bank statements. The measures sponsored by Rep. Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia, would change that requirement to only allow a government-issued photo ID.

The 8-4 vote was along party lines, with Republicans arguing the photo ID requirement would increases transparency and reduce voter fraud. Democrats said there are no reports of voter impersonation and the plan could disenfranchise voters.

Two hours after the committee endorsed the photo ID package, the Legislative Black Caucus held a news conference to state its opposition to the legislation. Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, who chairs the caucus, accused the Republicans of engaging in “voter suppression” and said the photo ID requirement was akin to a poll tax.

“They want us to require voter IDs, but the Republicans refuse to deal with a background check when it comes to guns ... we are talking about hypocrisy at its highest level,” said Nasheed, D-St. Louis.

Cox said what he’s proposing contains several safeguards and protections that would prevent disenfranchisement. Elderly and disabled people, those with religious objections and those who cannot afford the necessary documentation to get a state-issued photo ID would be allowed to sign an affidavit and cast a provisional ballot.

Nasheed said provisional ballots don’t protect people’s voting rights, because a lot of those ballots are thrown out. Cox denies that charge.

“Eligible voters will be able to vote, even those who end up voting on a provisional ballot because the election authority will recognize that they are a lawful voter, so it is a backward argument,” Cox said.

Both measures must pass through the House Rules Committee before they can be debated on the House floor.

The Republican-led Legislature first passed a voter photo ID requirement in 2006, but it was tossed out by the Missouri Supreme Court. Lawmakers tried again in 2011 by passing the photo ID law and a state constitutional amendment to address the court’s objections. But Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the photo ID law and the Cole County Circuit Court blocked the constitutional amendment from the ballot over concerns that its wording would mislead voters.

More like this story

MO4LIFE 3 months, 1 week ago

We don't want people background checked or to have to show id to buy a gun. But it is a major catastrophe if we don't make people show an id to vote a same right in the constitution as the right to bear arms. Kind of Hypocritical to say that one right is more important than the other one when they both are the two major rights given in this country to make a change and stand up for what you believe in. I just find it a little hypocritical that's all.

spelchek 3 months, 1 week ago

A gun can't vote.

connor 3 months, 1 week ago

Uhmmm you do have to show an ID to buy a gun and fill out a questionnaire on top of that. The hypocritical ones are the Liberals who want open voting to facilitate their voter fraud schemes and more restrictions on buying guns just in case someone gets tired of their voting schemes and decides to do something about it.

dixiesuzan 3 months, 1 week ago

Missouri Constitution --Preamble--- We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the state.---- Obama and his gun seizure friends are not the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.

Missouri Constitution --Article I ---BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; THAT ALL PERSONS HAVE A NATURAL RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; THAT TO GIVE SECURITY TO THESE IS THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design. --- So is Missouri State government giving security, the prinicipla office of government, to the natural right of all persons in their liberty to own the means of natural defense using guns? Or is Missouri government failing in its chief purpose and design?

Section 4. That MISSOURI IS A FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATE, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people.----The Constitution can not be amended by Presidential decree. The Constitution cannot be amended by bill in Congress. Those are not means of emendment as is contained in the instrument. Gun seizures in a State in which questioning gun ownership is not to be questioned, and which which affect the liberty of the people of Missouri in their private property of gun ownership would require a vote by the people in convention assembled PROVIDED IT WAS BY PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN DEFENSE OF HIS HOME, PERSON AND PROPERTY, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. ----So is section 23 of the Missouri Bill of Rights being questioned??? Including defending the private property in guns, the ultimate means to defend the rest.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune