For now, at least, there’s not going to be a voter “protection” ballot measure on Missouri’s  November 2012 ballot, and that’s good news for voters. But this is not a local story, and it’s far from over. It’s just the one that I live closest to. And it’s emblematic of what’s happening in many states.

In 2011, the Missouri legislature passed a ballot measure that, if approved by voters, would amend the state constitution to make it easier for lawmakers to make it harder for people to vote. Ostensibly, this measure will “protect” us from voter fraud. Recently, [March 11, 2012], a Missouri circuit court judge rejected the ballot measure, which had the Orwellian name of “Voter Protection Act.”

Behind the “protection” subterfuge, of course, is the real motive: an effort to suppress voting by people who Republicans would love to keep away from the polls. The measure would require voters to present government-issued photo ID at the polls. The catch is that not everyone has a driver’s license or state ID, and to get one, you have to present your birth certificate or citizenship documents—and those cost money and time. And who are the people who don’t have these items? Mostly, it’s low-income and minority voters—and those demographic groups tend to vote for Democrats.

But what truly amazes me about the latest Missouri voter suppression bill is who is sponsoring it. It’s State Rep. Shane Schoeller, a Republican from Springfield, Missouri. Schoeller is currently a candidate for….wait for it…Missouri Secretary of State, and the juxtaposition of his voter suppression bill with his electoral quest is ironic, to say the least. In Missouri, the Secretary of State is in charge of elections. He or she oversees registration, candidate filing, voter registration and elections. You would think that the main missions of that job would be to make sure that everyone who’s eligible to vote can actually vote, to make sure the voting process is fair, transparent and therefore trustworthy, and to enfranchise as many people as possible, as a way of promoting participation in the democratic process. I guess that’s not how Schoeller sees the job. By the looks of the bill he introduced, it seems that he views  becoming Secretary of State as a way of ensuring victories for his fellow Republicans.

The judge who threw out Schoeller’s latest attempt at voter suppression said that the name of the ballot measure, the “Voter Protection Act,” violated truth-in-advertising requirements.The problem is that the wording in the ballot measure doesn’t contain the phrase “voter protection,” and, under Missouri rules, you at least have to show that your law is somehow related to what it’s named for.

Unfortunately, the most recent legal setback to the voter-suppression initiative hasn’t discouraged Schoeller from reintroducing the same thing all over again.  Apparently, nothing deters the vote suppressors from their mission: not the fact that photo voter ID was struck down by the Missouri Supreme Court in 2006, and not even the fact that that studies of allegations of voter fraud in Missouri have turned up no evidence of fraud that could have been prevented by requiring photo ID. Less than two weeks after the Cole County Circuit Court threw out the 2011 ballot initiative, Schoeller has introduced a new bill, with ballot language that supposedly more closely conforms to the rules, into the Missouri legislature, and just today [April 3, 2012], a Missouri House committee approved the do-over.  Schoeller hopes to get it passed before the legislative session ends in June, so that it can be placed on the November 2012 ballot.

Missouri is just one of many states that are working on similar laws, as part of a national, ALEC-driven effort to skew elections toward Republican voters. One can only hope that the courts continue to see through the fraudulent claim of voter fraud and that they and citizens realize the importance, in our increasingly fragile democratic system, of protecting voters from the vote “protectors.”

The post Voters need protection from self-appointed “vote protectors” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Once again, the Missouri legislature is attempting to change election laws by restricting voting to people who can present approved, state-issued photo identification. And, once again, legislators are pretending that photo-voter ID would be “free.” That’s simply not so.

The latest voter-disenfranchisement bill [Voter Photo Identification, SB 3] flies in the face of a Missouri Supreme Court decision that struck down an almost identical effort in 2006. In that ruling, the court said that the photo-ID law violated the fundamental right to vote as provided by the state constitution. Unfortunately, that definitive judicial smackdown has not stopped Missouri lawmakers from trying again.

Under this year’s proposed bill, acceptable forms of photo ID would be limited to:

• a non-expired Missouri driver’s license;
• a non-expired or non-expiring Missouri non-driver’s license;
• any identification containing a photograph issued by the Missouri National Guard, the United States armed forces, or the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; or
• a document issued by the United States or the state of Missouri containing the name of the voter which substantially conforms to the most recent signature in the individual’s voter registration records, a photograph, and an expiration date or if expired, the expiration is after the date of the most recent general election.

What’s different here? A lot. The proposed list is considerably shorter and more restrictive than the current  range of forms of ID that are currently accepted at Missouri polling places.

Under current law, you can vote by showing a driver’s license or state ID card from any state. You don’t have to have a photo ID: You can use the [non-photo] voter registration card issued by your county election commission. You can bring a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or other government document that contains your name and address. Or, you can show your [non-photo] student ID from a Missouri college or university—either public or private.

Bottom line, for many Missouri citizens, the proposed voter photo ID bill makes it significantly harder to vote.

Who’s left out?

The effect would be to disqualify a large section of the voting public. According to a recent study published by Demos:

A photo ID law could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Missourians. Two national surveys have found that large numbers of American citizens -disproportionately among certain demographic groups – do not possess a valid, government-issued photo ID, or the required documents for a photo ID (e.g. birth certificate or passport). Secretary Carnahan too has identified as many as 240,000 registered Missouri voters – mostly the elderly, disabled, poor and minority voters – who lacked a government-issued photo ID through statewide database-matching in 2008 and 2009. More recently, the Department of Revenue estimated 253,496 registered voters in Missouri do not have photo identification on file with the Department of Revenue.

Get out your checkbook, and wait your turn

To get a “free” photo-voter ID in Missouri, a voter would have to jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops—many of which involve fees. Here’s a tally of the costs that could be associated with getting that “free” ID.

To get a voter-photo ID in Missouri, if you don’t already have one, you would have to present ALL of the following documents that apply to you:

Proof of lawful residence is among the most problematic requirements, as many Americans do not have their birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers readily at hand.

As reported by Demos,

A national survey conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation found that 5.7 percent of the native-born adult population does not have a birth certificate or US passport at home. Assuming that this 5.7 percent share is the same in Missouri as in the nation as a whole, an estimated 238,000 Missourians would not be able to obtain the required photo ID to cast a ballot.

In addition, the survey results show how certain demographic groups would be disproportionately affected by a photo ID law because they are much less likely to have the necessary documents to acquire a photo ID. These vulnerable populations include people without a high school diploma (9.2 percent of whom lack the documents), rural residents (9.1 percent), African Americans (8.9 percent), households with incomes below $25,000 (8.1 percent), and the elderly (7.4 percent). Assuming that the above percentages are the same for Missouri as for the nation as a whole, a photo ID requirement would potentially disenfranchise:

• more than 90,000 rural residents;
• 70,000 low-income residents;
• 50,000 residents without a high school diploma;
• 50,000 elderly residents; and
• 40,000 African Americans.

State budget would take a hit, too

“Free” photo voter IDs won’t be free for Missouri state government either. The fiscal note on SB3 pegs the cost of implementing photo IDs at $21.2 million. Under the proposed law, Missouri would not charge residents for the non-driver photo ID itself. The costs would come from reduced income to the Missouri Department of Revenue, which currently charges $11 for a non-driver photo ID, and from the money that would need to be budgeted for the Missouri Secretary of State’s office for an educational campaign about the new rules and for training election workers to implement them.

Why bother?

Proponents of Missouri’s proposed photo-voter ID law say that it’s about protecting against voter fraud. But, in fact, according to Missouri’s Secretary of State, there has not been a single, documented case of voter impersonation in the state. Anyone who has ever served at a voting precinct as an election worker knows that there are many safeguards and political checks and balances already in place to make sure that voters are who they say they are. In addition, severe penalties are already on the books for voter impersonation. Under the current rules for voter identification, mass voter impersonation campaigns are highly unlikely.  So, the voter-fraud rationale for photo voter ID is clearly a ruse for the real motivation: suppressing the vote among certain demographic groups.

Photo voter ID, already struck down once as unconstitutional by Missouri’s own Supreme Court, is a repressive, anti-democratic law that Missouri doesn’t need and, oh, by the way, can’t pay for.

The post Hidden costs of “free” photo voter IDs appeared first on Occasional Planet.