We encourage, but do not necessarily expect, Missouri lawmakers to sustain Gov. Jay Nixon's veto of a photo ID requirement for voters at the polls.
A photo ID mandate is a priority among Republicans, who hold majorities in both the Senate and House. The bill was approved by the Legislature and subsequently vetoed by Nixon, a Democrat.
It is expected to be among the bills considered for an override when lawmakers convene today for the annual veto session.
An override, if it occurs, is not the final word on this issue. Missouri voters also will be asked to decide a proposed constitutional amendment to allow lawmakers to require a photo ID for voters. The constitutional change is being sought to avoid a repeat of a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling that found a previous photo ID requirement to be unconstitutional.
Any effort to amend the constitution - particularly on the issue of voting rights - ought to raise a caution flag.
We believe GOP lawmakers have proposed and helped pass a number of measures to promote good government, but photo ID missed that mark by a wide margin.
It is unnecessary, costly and partisan.
First, as Nixon wrote in his veto message, the measure "purports to solve a problem which does not exist." Supporters contend a photo ID is necessary to prevent voter fraud, but offer little evidence to indicate voter fraud is a problem.
A recent investigation of alleged irregularities focuses on absentee ballots, not votes cast at a polling place.
Second, the costs to Missouri taxpayers cannot be justified. The measure has been estimated to cost up to $2 million this year and more than $11 million to implement voter ID in 2018.
Finally, we believe the photo ID requirement is blatantly partisan. Supporters, primarily Republicans, have not effectively rebutted criticism that their primary motive is essentially to disenfranchise voters who tend to favor Democratic candidates.
That's not the right way to go about winning an election. Candidates deserve to prevail by convincing a majority of voters they have better ideas, not by diluting the number of voters they fail to convince.
We urge legislators to put the interests of the voting public above those of their political party, then vote to sustain the veto.