More fuel on the photo ID fire
The Missouri House just passed a contentious resolution asking for a constitutional amendment to require an official photo ID to cast a ballot.
At virtually the same moment, opponents of the measure ramped up their protests at a news conference in St. Louis, reiterating their claims that the measure would keep some people – particularly poor, elderly and minority citizens – out of the voting both.
These are only the latest development in a lengthy debate over photo ID requirements in Missouri. Republicans in 2006 passed a law requiring government issued photo ID, but the state supreme court ruled the the requirements violated the state constitution.
But last month, a decision by the U.S. high court breathed new life into the issue. The justices ruled that Indiana’s photo ID law was constitutional on the federal level.
That gave heart to Missouri Republicans who scrambled to fast-track the proposed ballot question, which asks voters whether the state constitution should be amended to require government-issued photo ID at the polls.
Supporters of the measure say that photo ID requirements are a nominal burden and yet go a long way toward the goal of preventing voter fraud. Most people, they say, already have or could easily get the required ID.
“When you go to vote, you should be able to prove who you are,” said Rep. Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia, who sponsored resolution.
The measure passed the house 88 to 69 after about an hour of highly partisan debate. No Democrats voted yes; only Rep. Jim Guest, R-King City, crossed party lines.
One of the most vocal critics of the idea, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat, held a press conference at the same time in St. Louis to stress her opposition. Carnahan said it was her job “to protect every voter’s right to vote, not 95 percent of voters.”
“These laws are detrimental and harmful to these people who want to exercise their right to vote,” Carnahan said.
Other local residents also spoke out against the measure. Two nuns said elderly sisters of their orders typically don’t have drivers licenses. A woman originally from Mississippi said her birth certificate, once held there in Jackson, was destroyed in a fire.
Opponents say the requirement could be discriminatory – that elderly, poor and minority residents will feel the burden more, as they’re less likely to have an up-to-date drivers license, state ID or passport. Critics also see the cost and process to obtain a birth certificate to get a such an ID as simply too high a hurdle.
Still, during the press conference, the resolution’s passing was announced as expected. Carnahan then suggested that voters call their state senators, who have only days to pass the measure.
(Thanks to Lee Logan, of the Post-Dispatch Jeff City bureau, for reporting on the bill’s passage from the House.)
Funny, but I’m not the one advocating unverifiable voter registrations or the belief that an important right like voting doesn’t come with equally important responsibilities.
I suppose we could ask voters to place their thumbs in a bottle of ink, but then our impoverished and overburdened friends on the Left would complain about the color.