Once again, Missouri’s Republican-dominated legislature is pushing for a photo ID requirement for voting in this state. This time, it’s on the Nov. 8 ballot as Constitutional Amendment 6. While other state legislatures have passed similar laws, this is the first time that a photo-ID measure weakening the right to vote has been put to a statewide vote anywhere in the US.  And, unfortunately, polling seems to indicate that it’s going to pass by a huge majority.

Why? Last night, I worked at a League of Women Voters phone bank, where we talked to voters about Amendment 6. Here are some of the misconceptions and biases we encountered, and some countervailing arguments, courtesy of the Advancement Project:

“What’s the problem? Everyone should have to show ID to vote.”

Missouri already requires voter ID. Acceptable forms of ID include: a college ID; a driver’s license; a driver’s license from another state; an expired ID; a voter registration card; a utility bill; a federal ID card. Amendment 6 needlessly limits the forms of acceptable ID and would not allow anything other than a Missouri driver’s license or a state-issued non-driver ID card. .

“But you need a photo ID to get on an airplane and to cash a check. What’s the big deal?”

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to fly on an airplane, or the right to cash a check. But the Constitution does guarantee your right to vote. Adding an obstacle and a hassle to voting interferes with that right.

“I’ve got my ID already. This doesn’t affect me.”

It could. Or it could affect a family member, a neighbor or a friend. More than 220,000 Missouri voters lack a state ID. African-Americans, seniors, people with disabilities, the working poor, and students are nearly twice as likely to lack a non-expired state ID. Another 100,000 Missouri voters have a photo ID, but it has expired—in many cases that’s because they have stopped driving due to older age or disability. Under Amendment 6, their ID’s would no longer be accepted.

Added together, that’s 320,000 people who won’t be able to vote with their current form of ID. That number equals 10 percent of the total number of votes expected in Missouri in the 2016 presidential election on November 8.

“We need photo ID to prevent dead people from voting and other people from voting more than once.”

National studies examining millions of votes cast in past elections have turned up less than 50 cases of voter impersonation. There have been no cases of voter impersonation fraud in Missouri—the only voting problem addressed by a photo-ID requirement. Photo ID doesn’t address registration or absentee voting problems. Most states have checks and balances in place at polling places that would make voter impersonation extremely difficult. In Missouri, for example, both a Republican and a Democratic election official must sign off on every voter’s ID. Amendment 6 poses a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

“People should stop whining. What does a new ID cost, anyway—maybe 15 bucks?”

The logistics of getting a new photo ID can be complicated. You need a copy of your birth certificate, which can be hard to obtain for elderly people. [And, as one phone banker told us, to get a copy of your birth certificate in the City of St. Louis, you need—wait for it—a valid Missouri driver’s license. Catch 22!]

As to costs, the Missouri legislature has promised that it will pay for photo IDs. The estimated cost  is more than $16 million in tax dollars. Unfortunately, that’s a rather empty promise, as no money has been allocated in the state budget for this purpose.

“Never heard of it.”

Neither have a lot of people. Amendment 6 is one of those end-of-ballot propositions that surprise and puzzle voters. But it’s really important, because it is designed to making voting harder. Elections should be free, fair and accessible to everyone who is eligible to vote. The legislature passed a similar law—not a constitutional amendment—in 2006. But the Missouri Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, calling voter ID “a heavy and substantial burden” on the right to vote.

“Is this something that Republicans have come up with?”

Yep. Photo ID requirements fall more heavily on older voters and on minorities. They tend to vote Democratic. This is politically motivated attempt at suppressing the Democratic vote.

“So, wait. You want me to vote NO?”

Correct.

The post Photo ID: MO Amendment 6 weakens the right to vote appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Although it has been struck down more than once, photo voter ID just won’t die in Missouri, and this year, Republican legislators want to put the issue on the November 2014 ballot—to create an amendment to the Missouri constitution that would require voters to show photo ID in order to vote.

What’s wrong with that, you ask? Voters decide on state issues via ballot initiatives all the time, don’t they?  First, a bit of history:

In 2006, Missouri Republican lawmakers passed a voter ID bill that was later struck down by the Missouri Supreme Court. The court said the law amounted to a “heavy and substantial burden on Missourians’ free exercise of the right of suffrage.”

According to the Kansas City Star:

In response to the court’s ruling, lawmakers passed a proposed constitutional amendment allowing a photo ID requirement to vote. They also passed a companion bill that laid out the guidelines for implementing a photo ID law, should voters approve it.

Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the implementation bill.

Then, in 2012, they tried again. But a judge in Missouri’s Cole County struck down a proposed statewide vote on a similar constitutional amendment, ruling that the summary that would have appeared on the ballot was “insufficient and unfair” and pointed to two reasons for her ruling:

First, the ballot summary includes the phrase “Voter Protection Act,” even though the phrase never actually appears in the constitutional amendment.

Second, the summary stated that the amendment would allow the General Assembly to establish an early voting period, when in fact the amendment would “restrict the time period during which advance voting may occur,” [the judge] said.

Even given that history, Missouri Republicans are not willing to admit that they’re promoting a bad idea. Instead, they’re going all out: They’re taking an aggressive, two-pronged approach. Part A is getting the constitutional amendment on the November ballot and getting it passed in a statewide vote. Part B is a piece of enabling legislation, detailing the requirement for photo ID. The second bill would go into effect only if Missouri voters pass the constitutional amendment.

Depending on the wording on the ballot, what voters would be deciding on could be a non-specific, conceptual amendment—not something that spells out how photo voter ID would be implemented. The specifics would come later, in the enabling legislation that fills in the blanks. As it stands now, the enabling bill requires voters to present  state or federal government-issued photo identification. It would allow military IDs but not student IDs. But those requirements could change once the constitutional amendment is enshrined.

So, unless they are extremely well-informed, Missourians would essentially be voting on the proverbial pig in a poke. —and not just an easily rescinded law—a set-in-stone constitutional amendment that would be much harder to walk back. Undoing the damage would require another state-wide vote to overturn the amendment. 

The two bills have already passed in the Missouri House this year, and people who handicap these things say that there’s a good chance that they will move ahead in the Missouri Senate. MSNBC explains the odds this way:

In Missouri, the constitutional amendment would appear to have a decent shot at the polls, especially in a low turnout midterm election with no high-profile races on the ballot, a scenario that tends to favor Republicans and conservative causes. Despite the controversy over voter ID, it generally polls well, likely because most people overestimate the prevalence of in-person fraud and underestimate the number of people who lack ID.

It’s anybody’s guess whether Democrat Jay Nixon would veto the bills—but his veto could be meaningless, as Republicans have a veto-proof majority in the Missouri House and are just one vote away in the Senate.

This cockeyed notion of how to get your way when your way has been rejected—again and again—is another example of Missouri legislators resurrecting issues that—by virtue of court rulings or legislative defeat—have proven to be unpopular, unworkable, undemocratic [with a small “d”], or just plain unconstitutional and/or illegal. See also: nullification of federal gun laws. That’s back on the legislative agenda, too, in 2014, even though it failed a veto-override in 2013.

When I first came to Missouri, about 40 years ago, the state legislature met for six months every other year. There’s something to be said for that: Less time in session means fewer opportunities to do damage.  

The post Photo voter ID could be enshrined as a constitutional amendment in Missouri appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A classic country/western song says: “If you want to play in Texas, you gotta have a fiddle in the band.”  Well, if you want to vote in Texas on November 5, 2013, you gotta have a photo ID in your hand—a photo ID with your “up-to-date legal name” on it. That’s the new specification for Texas photo IDs, and it’s designed to disenfranchise the class of people who are most likely not to meet that standard: women.

As many as 34 percent of women voters in Texas lack a photo ID with their current name on it. The reason, of course, is that so many women change their names when they get married or divorced, but don’t get around to changing their drivers’ licenses until the next expiration date. Ninety-nine percent of men have their up-to-date legal names on their documents, because they never change their names.

And just to make the hurdle for women even higher, according to The New Civil Rights Movement:

Texas law now requires women to show original documents of the name change: a marriage certificate, a divorce certificate, or a court-ordered name-change certificate—and no photocopies are allowed. This leaves women in Texas either scrambling to gather the proper paperwork and get their ID in order before the registration cut-off, or leaves them unable to vote.

Think Progress adds:

Getting approved copies of these documents is often expensive or difficult for many, especially low-income women, to obtain.

…In the absence of original documents, voters must pay a minimum of $20 to receive new copies. Due to inflexible work schedules and travel expenses, voters often opt to have their documents mailed, incurring additional costs.

Similar to how poor, minority, and elderly voters in Pennsylvania had trouble getting to the DMV to obtain a state ID or driver’s license before the election, women in Texas are having trouble getting an acceptable photo ID that matches their most current name.

Just to put all of this into the real world, let me ask you this question: If you’re married or divorced, how quickly could you put your hands on your original marriage certificate, or your original divorce papers?

Why now?

The timing of this discriminatory voter ID law is not an accident. It comes as a direct response to the rising popularity of Texas State Senator Wendy Davis—a Democrat in the Republican-dominated legislature—whose 11-hour filibuster of anti-choice legislation catapulted her into the limelight. She is now running for Governor against Republican Greg Abbott, and she is galvanizing women voters in the state. The Texas Republican party is running scared, so, rather than try to win an election fair and square, they’re doing what Republican legislatures are doing all over America–rigging the election system to disenfranchise “undesirable” voters. It’s a sickening trend. First it was African-Americans, then it was Hispanics, then it was poor people, then it was anyone whose name sounded “foreign.” And now it’s women. After they exclude all of these groups, who will be left to vote? Oh, wait, that’s their point, isn’t it?

The post Voting rights watch: Texas makes voting harder for women appeared first on Occasional Planet.