First, the ballot summary includes the phrase \u201cVoter Protection Act,\u201d even though the phrase never actually appears in the constitutional amendment.<\/p>\n

Second, the summary stated that the amendment would allow the General Assembly to establish an early voting period, when in fact the amendment would \u201crestrict the time period during which advance voting may occur,\u201d [the judge] said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Even given that history, Missouri Republicans are not willing to admit that they\u2019re promoting a bad idea. Instead, they\u2019re going all out: They\u2019re 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.<\/p>\n

Depending on the wording on the ballot, what voters would be deciding on could be a non-specific, conceptual amendment\u2014not 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\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

So, unless they are extremely well-informed, Missourians would essentially be voting on the proverbial pig in a poke. \u2014and not just an easily rescinded law\u2014a set-in-stone constitutional amendment that would be much harder to walk back.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.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n