Missouri lawmakers endorse voter ID

Missouri next year could have a requirement that voters show a specified kind of photo identification when they go to the polls — but several steps still need to happen before that mandate could go into effect.

The Republican-controlled Legislature last week passed the enabling legislation — the law providing the details of how Missouri will require voters to identify themselves at the polls — and soon will send it to Gov. Jay Nixon.

But that law can’t be enforced without voters later this year passing an amendment to Missouri’s Constitution.

The House already has passed the proposed constitutional change, but the state Senate modified its wording — adding “in person” to the House-passed version — so the House will have to accept the change or negotiate a compromise.

Sen. Will Kraus, R-Lee’s Summit and a candidate for secretary of state in this year’s elections, told reporters last week the House likely will accept the change, allowing the Legislature to avoid another filibuster by the Senate’s Democrats, who are longtime opponents of the idea.

“They were kept in the loop all along — this will not go to conference. They will pass it as is,” Kraus said. “Senate leadership sent a loud and clear message that voter ID was a priority this year.”

The proposed amendment would add a new section to the Missouri Constitution’s “Voting and Suffrage” chapter, Article VIII.

The Senate’s version reads: “A person seeking to vote in person in public elections may be required by general law to identify himself or herself … by providing election officials with a form of identification, which may include valid government-issued photo identification.”

Some opponents note the proposed amendment adds language to the Constitution but doesn’t remove or change existing language in Article VIII that says: “All citizens of the United States, including occupants of soldiers’ and sailors’ homes, over the age of eighteen who are residents of this state and of the political subdivision in which they offer to vote are entitled to vote at all elections by the people …”

The Constitution also says, in the Bill of Rights (Article I): “That all elections shall be free and open; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.”

In 2006, a 6-1 Missouri Supreme Court ruling blocked a GOP-sponsored voter photo ID law that had been passed on the next-to-last day of the 2006 session, because: “The Missouri Constitution provides a specific provision that enshrines the right to vote (and the) Photo-ID Requirement creates a heavy burden on the right to vote and is not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.”

The 2006 court ruling said that proposed law fell “afoul of the Missouri Constitution’s equal protection clause and of Missourians’ specific constitutional protection of the right to vote,” adding: “Rather than leaving the issue of voter qualification to the legislature, the Missouri Constitution has established an exclusive list of qualifications necessary to vote in Missouri,” listing those as being “all citizens of the United States” who are over 18 and Missouri residents who also live in “the political subdivision in which they offer to vote are entitled to vote at all elections by the people …”

And, the court found: “These constitutional provisions establish with unmistakable clarity that the right to vote is fundamental to Missouri citizens.”

Since then, sponsors of a voters’ photo ID mandate have proposed a constitutional amendment as well as an enabling law.

Missouri law already has an identification requirement for voters at the polling place, including:

• A Missouri driver’s or non-driver’s license, which have a photo;

• A document that includes the individual’s name, substantially conforming to the voter’s most recent signature; a photo or digital image of the person; an expiration date that has not yet been reached or that was reached after the date of the most recent general election; and was issued by the United States or the state of Missouri;

• Any photo identification issued by the Missouri National Guard, the United States Armed Forces, or the United States Department of Veteran Affairs to a member or former member of the Missouri National Guard or the United States Armed Forces, and that does not have an expiration date;

• Identification issued by an institution of higher education, including a university, college, vocational and technical school located within Missouri;

• A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that contains the name and address of the voter, such as the county clerk’s voter card; or

• A driver’s license or state identification card issued by another state.

The proposed law keeps most of those options, through the military-related identification.

And previous proposals stopped there.

The biggest difference between this year’s bill and previous versions, Kraus said, “is the statement that allows those who don’t have an ID to sign a statement — under penalty of perjury — to be able to cast a ‘normal’ ballot.”

Negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans resulted in new language in the current proposal authorizing that statement, “averring that the individual is the person listed in the precinct register; averring that the individual does not possess a (described) form of personal identification; acknowledging that the individual is eligible to receive a Missouri nondriver’s license free of charge if desiring it in order to vote; and acknowledging that the individual is required to present a form of personal identification, as described” in the law.

Kraus told reporters there’s no limit to the number of times a voter can sign that affidavit, but “we’re going to make sure they know it’s the law of the land that they have to get an ID. We’re going to educate the voters by the affidavit.”

Nixon is expected to veto the enabling legislation.

He told reporters Friday: “Everybody knows that my general philosophy is to make voting easier, not more difficult — and that a much more significant problem is making our polling places accessible to people, not to make them harder for people to get to.”

Nixon didn’t say whether he’d sign or veto the bill.

“This is not a concept or a bill that I’ve ever been in favor of,” the governor added. “While I’ve not read this one, I don’t start my review of it trying to figure out a way to like it.”

But the proposal received enough votes in each house — 24-8 in the Senate and 112-38 in the House — to reach the two-thirds majority needed to override any veto.

The governor has no say — other than setting an election date other than the Nov. 8 general election — on the proposed constitutional amendment, which automatically goes to a statewide vote if both House and Senate agree on the same language.