Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
httpwwwvoxmagazinecomnewsfeaturesshow-me-idarticle_f85d7d52-eaa7-517d-8eaa-407531c44280html
FEATURED
Show-Me IDA vote in November could make Missouris voting requirements more stringent
JARED MCNETT JUN 30 2016
Photo illustration by Ryan Berry
Save
In 2010 a Democratic primary for a state house race in northeast Kansas City pitted John Rizzoagainst Will Royster two individuals whose family histories were woven into local politics Rizzoand Royster were vying for the seats that were once held by each of their fathers Rizzo had thename recognition while Royster boasted his history of local volunteer work No Republicancandidate was competing in the general election so the primary would determine the outcomeWhoever won would head to the state capitol in Jefferson City
The final count was 664-663 Months of campaigning came down to a single vote After a nastycampaign involving accusations of predatory lending and job service puffery Rizzo won the 40thDistrict Primary on Aug 3 2010 A recount took place and the count was the same Rizzo wasstill the victor
In the following years Royster alleged foul play and fraud in an attempt to get the election tossedand call for an investigation His outcry affected nothing until June 2013 when Rizzos aunt anduncle Clara and John Morentina pleaded guilty to voter fraud The couple admitted they illegallyclaimed an address within the 40th District in order to vote for Rizzo Two individuals whocommitted voter fraud swung an entire election
In December 2015 state Sen Will Kraus R-Leersquos Summit pre-filed legislation that would grantthe Missouri Secretary of State the power to require potential voters to show photo IDs issued bythe government before voting Concurrently Missouri lawmakers (largely Republican) wereworking on pushing a bill through that would make such a photo-ID requirement law
Prior to the filing on the Aug 30 2015 episode of This Week in Missouri Politics Kraus who isrunning for Secretary of State in the November 2016 election justified such legislation this wayldquoTherersquos over 16 people in the state of Missouri who have been convicted of some type of voterfraud That shows people in the state of Missouri are trying to cheat electionsrdquo Had Krausrsquo billalready been law perhaps the 2010 election in the 40th District would have gone Roysterrsquos wayand he could have saved several years of effort and $35000 in legal fees
Well maybe The legislation as Kraus proposed it is more explicitly aimed at stopping voterimpersonation fraud The fraud committed by the Morentinas to help their nephew probablywouldnrsquot have been affected by the law What they did was an issue of registration which can bedone via mail and without a photo ID The proposed legislation focuses primarily on voters whoseek to cast their ballots in person so that 2010 situation might not have been averted
NEW ELECTION SAME MEASURES
Cases concerned with increasing requirements for Missouri voters are nothing new in the Show-Me State The past decade has seen a barrage of similar measures often crafted by Republicansand opposed by Democrats
In June 2006 a voter-ID law was passed and signed into law under Gov Matt Blunt It wouldhave required voters to show a photo ID at the polls However in October 2006 the MissouriSupreme Court struck it down as a breach of the statersquos constitutional right to vote The courtfound it a burden in part because it forced citizens to pay for the cost of obtaining a state ID
Gov Jay Nixon fended off a similar bill in June 2011 with a veto which the state legislaturewasnrsquot able to override Republicans returned in 2012 using the approach of a state constitutionalamendment to increase voter-ID requirements In this case the ballot question for Missourivoters focused on whether the state constitution should be amended to adopt the VoterProtection Act which would have required voters to show photo ID at the polls But Cole CountyCircuit Judge Pat Joyce ruled such an attempt unconstitutional and it never made it onto aballot
As it currently stands Missourirsquos voter identification laws are relatively lax A form of photo ID isnot required and a person may use a recent bank statement or utility bill as identificationinstead And if no other paperwork is present a person might still be able to vote if twosupervisory poll workers know him or her
The proposed amendment pushed by Kraus seeks to change this This measure which is set toappear on the Nov 8 ballot asks Shall the Constitution of Missouri be amended to state thatvoters may be required by law which may be subject to exception to verify onersquos identitycitizenship and residence by presenting identification that may include valid government-issuedphoto identification Another piece of legislation is primarily focused on enforcement of voterIDs and according to reporting by KMOXCBS St Louis individuals lacking photo IDs ldquocouldstill cast a ballot after signing a statement saying under penalty of perjury they donrsquot have therequired identification and can show some other form of identifying document such as a utilitybill or paycheckrdquo
Marvin Overby a political science professor at MU says measures to tighten voter-ID regulationsare almost entirely about political showmanship ldquoDemocrats and Republicans consciouslyexaggerate their positions not in the real hopes of finding any policy solution to the issue but torev up support among their base constituenciesrdquo Overby says In his mind Republicans tend tooveremphasize the amount of voter fraud and Democrats dramatize how many individuals areimpacted by such legislation
Arizona State Universityrsquos News21 a Carnegie-Knight reporting effort analyzed 2068 cases ofreported voter fraud nationwide from 2000 to 2012 and found 10 cases of voter impersonationfraud The Washington Post reported ldquoWith 146 million registered voters in the United Statesthose represent about one for every 15 million prospective votersrdquo
MOVING AWAY FROM MISSOURI
Legislative pushes to address voter fraud are a relatively new phenomenon jumpstarted by the2008 US Supreme Court case Crawford v Marion County Election Board A 6-3 decision ruledthat an Indiana law requiring photo IDs to vote did not violate the US Constitution
In the eight years that followed 34 states passed some form of voter identification law Forinstance in Montana there is the minimal requirement to show some form of ID but in Texas itis an absolute necessity
In those states where an ID is required if one is not presented individuals can often cast aprovisional ballot Essentially these ballots are issued when a voterrsquos identity is in question andthey must be verified within a set amount of time often a week To verify his or her provisionalballot a voter must return to his or her municipal clerk with the proper identification asdetermined by state law
One issue with provisional ballots is that they often take more time to fill out than the typicalballot More importantly such ballots often stack up and are never sifted through again AfterCaliforniarsquos primary on June 7 some 24 million ballots were left uncounted at the end of thesame week According to the Los Angeles Times ldquoA portion of the unprocessed total areprovisional ballotsrdquo Per Los Angeles County Registrar County Clerk Dean Logan reported thatabout 85ndash90 percent of provisional ballots are counted and ultimately validated
In Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kanderrsquos report on the proposed legislation House Bill1073 asserted that less than 30 percent of provisional ballots cast in the 2012 presidentialelection were counted In that same election cycle The Election Assistance Commission found
Voting Laws Map
INFOGRAPHIC BY JARED MCNETT AND MADALYNE BIRD
that the Missouri rate for counting ballots was higher than 22 other states and was significantlyhigher than the national rate of 241 percent of rejected provisional ballots
North Carolinarsquos solution to the provisional ballot problem was clear-cut Per a 2013 Winston-Salem Journal article ldquovoters will no longer have their votes counted if they use a provisionalballot outside their correct precinctrdquo Voting outside of a preassigned sector is one factor thatoften leads to a provisional ballot Additionally the 2013 North Carolina voter ID law passed bya Republican-majority General Assembly cut down on early voting did away with same-dayregistration banned out-of-precinct voting and put an end to preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds
In April 2016 US District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder (a 2007 President George W Bushappointee) upheld the law and pushed back against arguments from the North Carolina NAACPand the Justice Department by ruling the plaintiffs ldquofailed to show that such disparities will havematerially adverse effects on the ability of minority voters to cast a ballot and effectively exercisethe electoral franchiserdquo (On June 21 the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit considered thecase to reverse Judge Schroederrsquos ruling)
Even when such laws are struck down some states continue to challenge judicial decsions Texasis one of those states According to the Brennan Center for Justice ldquothe 5th Circuit Court ofAppeals unanimously affirmed a federal trial courtrsquos earlier finding that Texasrsquo strict photo ID lawviolates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Actrdquo But Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxtonhas continued to challenge the case
Although itrsquos tempting to paint these voter-ID laws in partisan strokes as purely Republicaninventions passage does reach across the aisle In 2011 in Rhode Island then-Gov LincolnChaffee signed a voter-ID bill which had been passed by a Democratic legislature into law Sincethe billrsquos passage opponents have pointed to cases of voter disenfranchisement and argued that itimpacts Rhode Islandrsquos growing Latino population
Speaking with WGBH-Boston Pablo Rodriguez of the Rhode Island Latino Political ActionCommittee argued that the move was made by ldquoincumbents that are concerned about the numberof Latinos moving into their districts and threatening their own positions as legislatorsrdquo
WHO IS IMPACTED
Although there are notable outliers when it comes to the supposed partisanship of such bills theblatancy of minority voter-disenfranchisement is consistent across states A University ofCalifornia-San Diego research study ldquoVoter Identification Laws and the Suppression of MinorityVotesrdquo found that ldquostrict photo identification laws have a differentially negative impact on theturnout of Hispanics blacks and mixed-race Americans in primaries and general electionsrdquo
The model developed by the studyrsquos authors Zoltan Hajnal Nazita Lajevardi and LindsayNielson focused on turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and used the validated votefrom Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) Their model compared individualturnout in states with strict voter-ID laws (states that require a photo ID to cast a regular ballot)to individual turnout in other states after ldquocontrolling for other state level electoral laws thatencourage or discourage participationrdquo The authors also considered the election context by stateand district as well as demographic characteristics that impacted elections
In their model general election Latino turnout was predicted to be 103 points lower in stateswith strict photo-ID regulations than in states without such restrictions For multiracialAmericans turnout was 128 points lower under strict photo-ID laws Naturalized citizens were127 percent less likely to vote in general elections and 36 percent less likely to vote in primariesin strict photo-ID states ldquoWe had a gut instinct that voter-ID laws had an effectrdquo Lajevardi saysldquoVoter requirement laws traditionally over the past couple of centuries have had stark negativeeffectsrdquo
Outside of ethnic and racial minorities individuals across platforms appear to be stymied byvoter-ID laws According to the model Democratic turnout drops by ldquoan estimated 77percentage points in general elections when strict photo identification laws are in placerdquo Thehypothesized decline for Republicans is about 46 percent Additionally photo-ID laws are linkedto a reduction in voter turnout in primaries of Americans without high school degrees
Checking IDs
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY RYAN BERRY AND ASHLEY REESE
Even knowing the negative impacts of voter-ID laws Lajevardi still understands the reasonlegislators attempt to pass them ldquoProponents of these laws contend that these laws are usefulbecause they deter fraud and these laws are ensuring that we donrsquot have voter fraudrdquo she saysldquoTheyrsquore not wrong in caring about voter fraud but actually therersquos no research to support thatthese laws have any impact on voter fraudrdquo
Based on what Lajevardi has researched she believes that the ballot amendment in Missouri ifpassed would be among the strictest photo ID laws in the country The research and data thatshe used to come to that conclusion comes from the National Conference of State Legislaturersquoswebsite
Some Missouri voters believe the law will pass when it appears on ballots Nov 8 becauseMissouri generally favors conservatism They feel as if the amendment will pass partially becauseof the notion that people need identification for nearly everything
State Sen Kraus echoes this sentiment and says that in todayrsquos society everyone has an ID ldquoYouneed an ID to buy tobacco alcohol to get Sudafed cash a check and open a bank accountrdquo Kraussays ldquoYou have to have a photo IDrdquo
Although the measure exempts individuals with disabilities those born prior to 1946 and thosewith religious objections to being photographed the Kander report estimates that some 220000people could be impacted by such a law 2012 figures from the Missouri Secretary of State officeapproximate there are 419 million registered voters in Missouri
Missouri college students attempting to use university IDs to vote would be included in thisnumber because such IDs would not be valid under the law The measure also says that the statewill pay for IDs and any source documents needed to obtain them (a lesson learned from thefailed 2006 voter-ID bid) Such fees are one of several issues opponents of voter-ID laws raisecomparing them to ldquopoll-taxesrdquo a comparison that is also intended to evoke minority voterdiscrimination of the past
In the present as well as the very near future questions about identification for Missouri votersstill linger Does the need to ensure the integrity of a fundamental democratic process outweighthe possibility of marginalized citizens being further marginalized Is a yes vote on Nov 8worth all the legal challenges and tie-ups that could take place down the road What will thefuture effects of such a measure be
Is a utility bill or verbal confirmation of identity from election officials enough Considering thisquestion is being asked in the Show-Me State months from the day of the vote the final answercould well be no
A 10-year history of voter ID battles
Show-Me IDShow-Me ID
A DV E RT I S E M E NT
In 2010 a Democratic primary for a state house race in northeast Kansas City pitted John Rizzoagainst Will Royster two individuals whose family histories were woven into local politics Rizzoand Royster were vying for the seats that were once held by each of their fathers Rizzo had thename recognition while Royster boasted his history of local volunteer work No Republicancandidate was competing in the general election so the primary would determine the outcomeWhoever won would head to the state capitol in Jefferson City
The final count was 664-663 Months of campaigning came down to a single vote After a nastycampaign involving accusations of predatory lending and job service puffery Rizzo won the 40thDistrict Primary on Aug 3 2010 A recount took place and the count was the same Rizzo wasstill the victor
In the following years Royster alleged foul play and fraud in an attempt to get the election tossedand call for an investigation His outcry affected nothing until June 2013 when Rizzos aunt anduncle Clara and John Morentina pleaded guilty to voter fraud The couple admitted they illegallyclaimed an address within the 40th District in order to vote for Rizzo Two individuals whocommitted voter fraud swung an entire election
In December 2015 state Sen Will Kraus R-Leersquos Summit pre-filed legislation that would grantthe Missouri Secretary of State the power to require potential voters to show photo IDs issued bythe government before voting Concurrently Missouri lawmakers (largely Republican) wereworking on pushing a bill through that would make such a photo-ID requirement law
Prior to the filing on the Aug 30 2015 episode of This Week in Missouri Politics Kraus who isrunning for Secretary of State in the November 2016 election justified such legislation this wayldquoTherersquos over 16 people in the state of Missouri who have been convicted of some type of voterfraud That shows people in the state of Missouri are trying to cheat electionsrdquo Had Krausrsquo billalready been law perhaps the 2010 election in the 40th District would have gone Roysterrsquos wayand he could have saved several years of effort and $35000 in legal fees
Well maybe The legislation as Kraus proposed it is more explicitly aimed at stopping voterimpersonation fraud The fraud committed by the Morentinas to help their nephew probablywouldnrsquot have been affected by the law What they did was an issue of registration which can bedone via mail and without a photo ID The proposed legislation focuses primarily on voters whoseek to cast their ballots in person so that 2010 situation might not have been averted
NEW ELECTION SAME MEASURES
Cases concerned with increasing requirements for Missouri voters are nothing new in the Show-Me State The past decade has seen a barrage of similar measures often crafted by Republicansand opposed by Democrats
In June 2006 a voter-ID law was passed and signed into law under Gov Matt Blunt It wouldhave required voters to show a photo ID at the polls However in October 2006 the MissouriSupreme Court struck it down as a breach of the statersquos constitutional right to vote The courtfound it a burden in part because it forced citizens to pay for the cost of obtaining a state ID
Gov Jay Nixon fended off a similar bill in June 2011 with a veto which the state legislaturewasnrsquot able to override Republicans returned in 2012 using the approach of a state constitutionalamendment to increase voter-ID requirements In this case the ballot question for Missourivoters focused on whether the state constitution should be amended to adopt the VoterProtection Act which would have required voters to show photo ID at the polls But Cole CountyCircuit Judge Pat Joyce ruled such an attempt unconstitutional and it never made it onto aballot
As it currently stands Missourirsquos voter identification laws are relatively lax A form of photo ID isnot required and a person may use a recent bank statement or utility bill as identificationinstead And if no other paperwork is present a person might still be able to vote if twosupervisory poll workers know him or her
The proposed amendment pushed by Kraus seeks to change this This measure which is set toappear on the Nov 8 ballot asks Shall the Constitution of Missouri be amended to state thatvoters may be required by law which may be subject to exception to verify onersquos identitycitizenship and residence by presenting identification that may include valid government-issuedphoto identification Another piece of legislation is primarily focused on enforcement of voterIDs and according to reporting by KMOXCBS St Louis individuals lacking photo IDs ldquocouldstill cast a ballot after signing a statement saying under penalty of perjury they donrsquot have therequired identification and can show some other form of identifying document such as a utilitybill or paycheckrdquo
Marvin Overby a political science professor at MU says measures to tighten voter-ID regulationsare almost entirely about political showmanship ldquoDemocrats and Republicans consciouslyexaggerate their positions not in the real hopes of finding any policy solution to the issue but torev up support among their base constituenciesrdquo Overby says In his mind Republicans tend tooveremphasize the amount of voter fraud and Democrats dramatize how many individuals areimpacted by such legislation
Arizona State Universityrsquos News21 a Carnegie-Knight reporting effort analyzed 2068 cases ofreported voter fraud nationwide from 2000 to 2012 and found 10 cases of voter impersonationfraud The Washington Post reported ldquoWith 146 million registered voters in the United Statesthose represent about one for every 15 million prospective votersrdquo
MOVING AWAY FROM MISSOURI
Legislative pushes to address voter fraud are a relatively new phenomenon jumpstarted by the2008 US Supreme Court case Crawford v Marion County Election Board A 6-3 decision ruledthat an Indiana law requiring photo IDs to vote did not violate the US Constitution
In the eight years that followed 34 states passed some form of voter identification law Forinstance in Montana there is the minimal requirement to show some form of ID but in Texas itis an absolute necessity
In those states where an ID is required if one is not presented individuals can often cast aprovisional ballot Essentially these ballots are issued when a voterrsquos identity is in question andthey must be verified within a set amount of time often a week To verify his or her provisionalballot a voter must return to his or her municipal clerk with the proper identification asdetermined by state law
One issue with provisional ballots is that they often take more time to fill out than the typicalballot More importantly such ballots often stack up and are never sifted through again AfterCaliforniarsquos primary on June 7 some 24 million ballots were left uncounted at the end of thesame week According to the Los Angeles Times ldquoA portion of the unprocessed total areprovisional ballotsrdquo Per Los Angeles County Registrar County Clerk Dean Logan reported thatabout 85ndash90 percent of provisional ballots are counted and ultimately validated
In Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kanderrsquos report on the proposed legislation House Bill1073 asserted that less than 30 percent of provisional ballots cast in the 2012 presidentialelection were counted In that same election cycle The Election Assistance Commission found
Voting Laws Map
INFOGRAPHIC BY JARED MCNETT AND MADALYNE BIRD
that the Missouri rate for counting ballots was higher than 22 other states and was significantlyhigher than the national rate of 241 percent of rejected provisional ballots
North Carolinarsquos solution to the provisional ballot problem was clear-cut Per a 2013 Winston-Salem Journal article ldquovoters will no longer have their votes counted if they use a provisionalballot outside their correct precinctrdquo Voting outside of a preassigned sector is one factor thatoften leads to a provisional ballot Additionally the 2013 North Carolina voter ID law passed bya Republican-majority General Assembly cut down on early voting did away with same-dayregistration banned out-of-precinct voting and put an end to preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds
In April 2016 US District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder (a 2007 President George W Bushappointee) upheld the law and pushed back against arguments from the North Carolina NAACPand the Justice Department by ruling the plaintiffs ldquofailed to show that such disparities will havematerially adverse effects on the ability of minority voters to cast a ballot and effectively exercisethe electoral franchiserdquo (On June 21 the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit considered thecase to reverse Judge Schroederrsquos ruling)
Even when such laws are struck down some states continue to challenge judicial decsions Texasis one of those states According to the Brennan Center for Justice ldquothe 5th Circuit Court ofAppeals unanimously affirmed a federal trial courtrsquos earlier finding that Texasrsquo strict photo ID lawviolates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Actrdquo But Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxtonhas continued to challenge the case
Although itrsquos tempting to paint these voter-ID laws in partisan strokes as purely Republicaninventions passage does reach across the aisle In 2011 in Rhode Island then-Gov LincolnChaffee signed a voter-ID bill which had been passed by a Democratic legislature into law Sincethe billrsquos passage opponents have pointed to cases of voter disenfranchisement and argued that itimpacts Rhode Islandrsquos growing Latino population
Speaking with WGBH-Boston Pablo Rodriguez of the Rhode Island Latino Political ActionCommittee argued that the move was made by ldquoincumbents that are concerned about the numberof Latinos moving into their districts and threatening their own positions as legislatorsrdquo
WHO IS IMPACTED
Although there are notable outliers when it comes to the supposed partisanship of such bills theblatancy of minority voter-disenfranchisement is consistent across states A University ofCalifornia-San Diego research study ldquoVoter Identification Laws and the Suppression of MinorityVotesrdquo found that ldquostrict photo identification laws have a differentially negative impact on theturnout of Hispanics blacks and mixed-race Americans in primaries and general electionsrdquo
The model developed by the studyrsquos authors Zoltan Hajnal Nazita Lajevardi and LindsayNielson focused on turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and used the validated votefrom Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) Their model compared individualturnout in states with strict voter-ID laws (states that require a photo ID to cast a regular ballot)to individual turnout in other states after ldquocontrolling for other state level electoral laws thatencourage or discourage participationrdquo The authors also considered the election context by stateand district as well as demographic characteristics that impacted elections
In their model general election Latino turnout was predicted to be 103 points lower in stateswith strict photo-ID regulations than in states without such restrictions For multiracialAmericans turnout was 128 points lower under strict photo-ID laws Naturalized citizens were127 percent less likely to vote in general elections and 36 percent less likely to vote in primariesin strict photo-ID states ldquoWe had a gut instinct that voter-ID laws had an effectrdquo Lajevardi saysldquoVoter requirement laws traditionally over the past couple of centuries have had stark negativeeffectsrdquo
Outside of ethnic and racial minorities individuals across platforms appear to be stymied byvoter-ID laws According to the model Democratic turnout drops by ldquoan estimated 77percentage points in general elections when strict photo identification laws are in placerdquo Thehypothesized decline for Republicans is about 46 percent Additionally photo-ID laws are linkedto a reduction in voter turnout in primaries of Americans without high school degrees
Checking IDs
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY RYAN BERRY AND ASHLEY REESE
Even knowing the negative impacts of voter-ID laws Lajevardi still understands the reasonlegislators attempt to pass them ldquoProponents of these laws contend that these laws are usefulbecause they deter fraud and these laws are ensuring that we donrsquot have voter fraudrdquo she saysldquoTheyrsquore not wrong in caring about voter fraud but actually therersquos no research to support thatthese laws have any impact on voter fraudrdquo
Based on what Lajevardi has researched she believes that the ballot amendment in Missouri ifpassed would be among the strictest photo ID laws in the country The research and data thatshe used to come to that conclusion comes from the National Conference of State Legislaturersquoswebsite
Some Missouri voters believe the law will pass when it appears on ballots Nov 8 becauseMissouri generally favors conservatism They feel as if the amendment will pass partially becauseof the notion that people need identification for nearly everything
State Sen Kraus echoes this sentiment and says that in todayrsquos society everyone has an ID ldquoYouneed an ID to buy tobacco alcohol to get Sudafed cash a check and open a bank accountrdquo Kraussays ldquoYou have to have a photo IDrdquo
Although the measure exempts individuals with disabilities those born prior to 1946 and thosewith religious objections to being photographed the Kander report estimates that some 220000people could be impacted by such a law 2012 figures from the Missouri Secretary of State officeapproximate there are 419 million registered voters in Missouri
Missouri college students attempting to use university IDs to vote would be included in thisnumber because such IDs would not be valid under the law The measure also says that the statewill pay for IDs and any source documents needed to obtain them (a lesson learned from thefailed 2006 voter-ID bid) Such fees are one of several issues opponents of voter-ID laws raisecomparing them to ldquopoll-taxesrdquo a comparison that is also intended to evoke minority voterdiscrimination of the past
In the present as well as the very near future questions about identification for Missouri votersstill linger Does the need to ensure the integrity of a fundamental democratic process outweighthe possibility of marginalized citizens being further marginalized Is a yes vote on Nov 8worth all the legal challenges and tie-ups that could take place down the road What will thefuture effects of such a measure be
Is a utility bill or verbal confirmation of identity from election officials enough Considering thisquestion is being asked in the Show-Me State months from the day of the vote the final answercould well be no
A 10-year history of voter ID battles
Show-Me IDShow-Me ID
A DV E RT I S E M E NT
Cases concerned with increasing requirements for Missouri voters are nothing new in the Show-Me State The past decade has seen a barrage of similar measures often crafted by Republicansand opposed by Democrats
In June 2006 a voter-ID law was passed and signed into law under Gov Matt Blunt It wouldhave required voters to show a photo ID at the polls However in October 2006 the MissouriSupreme Court struck it down as a breach of the statersquos constitutional right to vote The courtfound it a burden in part because it forced citizens to pay for the cost of obtaining a state ID
Gov Jay Nixon fended off a similar bill in June 2011 with a veto which the state legislaturewasnrsquot able to override Republicans returned in 2012 using the approach of a state constitutionalamendment to increase voter-ID requirements In this case the ballot question for Missourivoters focused on whether the state constitution should be amended to adopt the VoterProtection Act which would have required voters to show photo ID at the polls But Cole CountyCircuit Judge Pat Joyce ruled such an attempt unconstitutional and it never made it onto aballot
As it currently stands Missourirsquos voter identification laws are relatively lax A form of photo ID isnot required and a person may use a recent bank statement or utility bill as identificationinstead And if no other paperwork is present a person might still be able to vote if twosupervisory poll workers know him or her
The proposed amendment pushed by Kraus seeks to change this This measure which is set toappear on the Nov 8 ballot asks Shall the Constitution of Missouri be amended to state thatvoters may be required by law which may be subject to exception to verify onersquos identitycitizenship and residence by presenting identification that may include valid government-issuedphoto identification Another piece of legislation is primarily focused on enforcement of voterIDs and according to reporting by KMOXCBS St Louis individuals lacking photo IDs ldquocouldstill cast a ballot after signing a statement saying under penalty of perjury they donrsquot have therequired identification and can show some other form of identifying document such as a utilitybill or paycheckrdquo
Marvin Overby a political science professor at MU says measures to tighten voter-ID regulationsare almost entirely about political showmanship ldquoDemocrats and Republicans consciouslyexaggerate their positions not in the real hopes of finding any policy solution to the issue but torev up support among their base constituenciesrdquo Overby says In his mind Republicans tend tooveremphasize the amount of voter fraud and Democrats dramatize how many individuals areimpacted by such legislation
Arizona State Universityrsquos News21 a Carnegie-Knight reporting effort analyzed 2068 cases ofreported voter fraud nationwide from 2000 to 2012 and found 10 cases of voter impersonationfraud The Washington Post reported ldquoWith 146 million registered voters in the United Statesthose represent about one for every 15 million prospective votersrdquo
MOVING AWAY FROM MISSOURI
Legislative pushes to address voter fraud are a relatively new phenomenon jumpstarted by the2008 US Supreme Court case Crawford v Marion County Election Board A 6-3 decision ruledthat an Indiana law requiring photo IDs to vote did not violate the US Constitution
In the eight years that followed 34 states passed some form of voter identification law Forinstance in Montana there is the minimal requirement to show some form of ID but in Texas itis an absolute necessity
In those states where an ID is required if one is not presented individuals can often cast aprovisional ballot Essentially these ballots are issued when a voterrsquos identity is in question andthey must be verified within a set amount of time often a week To verify his or her provisionalballot a voter must return to his or her municipal clerk with the proper identification asdetermined by state law
One issue with provisional ballots is that they often take more time to fill out than the typicalballot More importantly such ballots often stack up and are never sifted through again AfterCaliforniarsquos primary on June 7 some 24 million ballots were left uncounted at the end of thesame week According to the Los Angeles Times ldquoA portion of the unprocessed total areprovisional ballotsrdquo Per Los Angeles County Registrar County Clerk Dean Logan reported thatabout 85ndash90 percent of provisional ballots are counted and ultimately validated
In Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kanderrsquos report on the proposed legislation House Bill1073 asserted that less than 30 percent of provisional ballots cast in the 2012 presidentialelection were counted In that same election cycle The Election Assistance Commission found
Voting Laws Map
INFOGRAPHIC BY JARED MCNETT AND MADALYNE BIRD
that the Missouri rate for counting ballots was higher than 22 other states and was significantlyhigher than the national rate of 241 percent of rejected provisional ballots
North Carolinarsquos solution to the provisional ballot problem was clear-cut Per a 2013 Winston-Salem Journal article ldquovoters will no longer have their votes counted if they use a provisionalballot outside their correct precinctrdquo Voting outside of a preassigned sector is one factor thatoften leads to a provisional ballot Additionally the 2013 North Carolina voter ID law passed bya Republican-majority General Assembly cut down on early voting did away with same-dayregistration banned out-of-precinct voting and put an end to preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds
In April 2016 US District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder (a 2007 President George W Bushappointee) upheld the law and pushed back against arguments from the North Carolina NAACPand the Justice Department by ruling the plaintiffs ldquofailed to show that such disparities will havematerially adverse effects on the ability of minority voters to cast a ballot and effectively exercisethe electoral franchiserdquo (On June 21 the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit considered thecase to reverse Judge Schroederrsquos ruling)
Even when such laws are struck down some states continue to challenge judicial decsions Texasis one of those states According to the Brennan Center for Justice ldquothe 5th Circuit Court ofAppeals unanimously affirmed a federal trial courtrsquos earlier finding that Texasrsquo strict photo ID lawviolates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Actrdquo But Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxtonhas continued to challenge the case
Although itrsquos tempting to paint these voter-ID laws in partisan strokes as purely Republicaninventions passage does reach across the aisle In 2011 in Rhode Island then-Gov LincolnChaffee signed a voter-ID bill which had been passed by a Democratic legislature into law Sincethe billrsquos passage opponents have pointed to cases of voter disenfranchisement and argued that itimpacts Rhode Islandrsquos growing Latino population
Speaking with WGBH-Boston Pablo Rodriguez of the Rhode Island Latino Political ActionCommittee argued that the move was made by ldquoincumbents that are concerned about the numberof Latinos moving into their districts and threatening their own positions as legislatorsrdquo
WHO IS IMPACTED
Although there are notable outliers when it comes to the supposed partisanship of such bills theblatancy of minority voter-disenfranchisement is consistent across states A University ofCalifornia-San Diego research study ldquoVoter Identification Laws and the Suppression of MinorityVotesrdquo found that ldquostrict photo identification laws have a differentially negative impact on theturnout of Hispanics blacks and mixed-race Americans in primaries and general electionsrdquo
The model developed by the studyrsquos authors Zoltan Hajnal Nazita Lajevardi and LindsayNielson focused on turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and used the validated votefrom Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) Their model compared individualturnout in states with strict voter-ID laws (states that require a photo ID to cast a regular ballot)to individual turnout in other states after ldquocontrolling for other state level electoral laws thatencourage or discourage participationrdquo The authors also considered the election context by stateand district as well as demographic characteristics that impacted elections
In their model general election Latino turnout was predicted to be 103 points lower in stateswith strict photo-ID regulations than in states without such restrictions For multiracialAmericans turnout was 128 points lower under strict photo-ID laws Naturalized citizens were127 percent less likely to vote in general elections and 36 percent less likely to vote in primariesin strict photo-ID states ldquoWe had a gut instinct that voter-ID laws had an effectrdquo Lajevardi saysldquoVoter requirement laws traditionally over the past couple of centuries have had stark negativeeffectsrdquo
Outside of ethnic and racial minorities individuals across platforms appear to be stymied byvoter-ID laws According to the model Democratic turnout drops by ldquoan estimated 77percentage points in general elections when strict photo identification laws are in placerdquo Thehypothesized decline for Republicans is about 46 percent Additionally photo-ID laws are linkedto a reduction in voter turnout in primaries of Americans without high school degrees
Checking IDs
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY RYAN BERRY AND ASHLEY REESE
Even knowing the negative impacts of voter-ID laws Lajevardi still understands the reasonlegislators attempt to pass them ldquoProponents of these laws contend that these laws are usefulbecause they deter fraud and these laws are ensuring that we donrsquot have voter fraudrdquo she saysldquoTheyrsquore not wrong in caring about voter fraud but actually therersquos no research to support thatthese laws have any impact on voter fraudrdquo
Based on what Lajevardi has researched she believes that the ballot amendment in Missouri ifpassed would be among the strictest photo ID laws in the country The research and data thatshe used to come to that conclusion comes from the National Conference of State Legislaturersquoswebsite
Some Missouri voters believe the law will pass when it appears on ballots Nov 8 becauseMissouri generally favors conservatism They feel as if the amendment will pass partially becauseof the notion that people need identification for nearly everything
State Sen Kraus echoes this sentiment and says that in todayrsquos society everyone has an ID ldquoYouneed an ID to buy tobacco alcohol to get Sudafed cash a check and open a bank accountrdquo Kraussays ldquoYou have to have a photo IDrdquo
Although the measure exempts individuals with disabilities those born prior to 1946 and thosewith religious objections to being photographed the Kander report estimates that some 220000people could be impacted by such a law 2012 figures from the Missouri Secretary of State officeapproximate there are 419 million registered voters in Missouri
Missouri college students attempting to use university IDs to vote would be included in thisnumber because such IDs would not be valid under the law The measure also says that the statewill pay for IDs and any source documents needed to obtain them (a lesson learned from thefailed 2006 voter-ID bid) Such fees are one of several issues opponents of voter-ID laws raisecomparing them to ldquopoll-taxesrdquo a comparison that is also intended to evoke minority voterdiscrimination of the past
In the present as well as the very near future questions about identification for Missouri votersstill linger Does the need to ensure the integrity of a fundamental democratic process outweighthe possibility of marginalized citizens being further marginalized Is a yes vote on Nov 8worth all the legal challenges and tie-ups that could take place down the road What will thefuture effects of such a measure be
Is a utility bill or verbal confirmation of identity from election officials enough Considering thisquestion is being asked in the Show-Me State months from the day of the vote the final answercould well be no
A 10-year history of voter ID battles
Show-Me IDShow-Me ID
A DV E RT I S E M E NT
Arizona State Universityrsquos News21 a Carnegie-Knight reporting effort analyzed 2068 cases ofreported voter fraud nationwide from 2000 to 2012 and found 10 cases of voter impersonationfraud The Washington Post reported ldquoWith 146 million registered voters in the United Statesthose represent about one for every 15 million prospective votersrdquo
MOVING AWAY FROM MISSOURI
Legislative pushes to address voter fraud are a relatively new phenomenon jumpstarted by the2008 US Supreme Court case Crawford v Marion County Election Board A 6-3 decision ruledthat an Indiana law requiring photo IDs to vote did not violate the US Constitution
In the eight years that followed 34 states passed some form of voter identification law Forinstance in Montana there is the minimal requirement to show some form of ID but in Texas itis an absolute necessity
In those states where an ID is required if one is not presented individuals can often cast aprovisional ballot Essentially these ballots are issued when a voterrsquos identity is in question andthey must be verified within a set amount of time often a week To verify his or her provisionalballot a voter must return to his or her municipal clerk with the proper identification asdetermined by state law
One issue with provisional ballots is that they often take more time to fill out than the typicalballot More importantly such ballots often stack up and are never sifted through again AfterCaliforniarsquos primary on June 7 some 24 million ballots were left uncounted at the end of thesame week According to the Los Angeles Times ldquoA portion of the unprocessed total areprovisional ballotsrdquo Per Los Angeles County Registrar County Clerk Dean Logan reported thatabout 85ndash90 percent of provisional ballots are counted and ultimately validated
In Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kanderrsquos report on the proposed legislation House Bill1073 asserted that less than 30 percent of provisional ballots cast in the 2012 presidentialelection were counted In that same election cycle The Election Assistance Commission found
Voting Laws Map
INFOGRAPHIC BY JARED MCNETT AND MADALYNE BIRD
that the Missouri rate for counting ballots was higher than 22 other states and was significantlyhigher than the national rate of 241 percent of rejected provisional ballots
North Carolinarsquos solution to the provisional ballot problem was clear-cut Per a 2013 Winston-Salem Journal article ldquovoters will no longer have their votes counted if they use a provisionalballot outside their correct precinctrdquo Voting outside of a preassigned sector is one factor thatoften leads to a provisional ballot Additionally the 2013 North Carolina voter ID law passed bya Republican-majority General Assembly cut down on early voting did away with same-dayregistration banned out-of-precinct voting and put an end to preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds
In April 2016 US District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder (a 2007 President George W Bushappointee) upheld the law and pushed back against arguments from the North Carolina NAACPand the Justice Department by ruling the plaintiffs ldquofailed to show that such disparities will havematerially adverse effects on the ability of minority voters to cast a ballot and effectively exercisethe electoral franchiserdquo (On June 21 the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit considered thecase to reverse Judge Schroederrsquos ruling)
Even when such laws are struck down some states continue to challenge judicial decsions Texasis one of those states According to the Brennan Center for Justice ldquothe 5th Circuit Court ofAppeals unanimously affirmed a federal trial courtrsquos earlier finding that Texasrsquo strict photo ID lawviolates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Actrdquo But Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxtonhas continued to challenge the case
Although itrsquos tempting to paint these voter-ID laws in partisan strokes as purely Republicaninventions passage does reach across the aisle In 2011 in Rhode Island then-Gov LincolnChaffee signed a voter-ID bill which had been passed by a Democratic legislature into law Sincethe billrsquos passage opponents have pointed to cases of voter disenfranchisement and argued that itimpacts Rhode Islandrsquos growing Latino population
Speaking with WGBH-Boston Pablo Rodriguez of the Rhode Island Latino Political ActionCommittee argued that the move was made by ldquoincumbents that are concerned about the numberof Latinos moving into their districts and threatening their own positions as legislatorsrdquo
WHO IS IMPACTED
Although there are notable outliers when it comes to the supposed partisanship of such bills theblatancy of minority voter-disenfranchisement is consistent across states A University ofCalifornia-San Diego research study ldquoVoter Identification Laws and the Suppression of MinorityVotesrdquo found that ldquostrict photo identification laws have a differentially negative impact on theturnout of Hispanics blacks and mixed-race Americans in primaries and general electionsrdquo
The model developed by the studyrsquos authors Zoltan Hajnal Nazita Lajevardi and LindsayNielson focused on turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and used the validated votefrom Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) Their model compared individualturnout in states with strict voter-ID laws (states that require a photo ID to cast a regular ballot)to individual turnout in other states after ldquocontrolling for other state level electoral laws thatencourage or discourage participationrdquo The authors also considered the election context by stateand district as well as demographic characteristics that impacted elections
In their model general election Latino turnout was predicted to be 103 points lower in stateswith strict photo-ID regulations than in states without such restrictions For multiracialAmericans turnout was 128 points lower under strict photo-ID laws Naturalized citizens were127 percent less likely to vote in general elections and 36 percent less likely to vote in primariesin strict photo-ID states ldquoWe had a gut instinct that voter-ID laws had an effectrdquo Lajevardi saysldquoVoter requirement laws traditionally over the past couple of centuries have had stark negativeeffectsrdquo
Outside of ethnic and racial minorities individuals across platforms appear to be stymied byvoter-ID laws According to the model Democratic turnout drops by ldquoan estimated 77percentage points in general elections when strict photo identification laws are in placerdquo Thehypothesized decline for Republicans is about 46 percent Additionally photo-ID laws are linkedto a reduction in voter turnout in primaries of Americans without high school degrees
Checking IDs
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY RYAN BERRY AND ASHLEY REESE
Even knowing the negative impacts of voter-ID laws Lajevardi still understands the reasonlegislators attempt to pass them ldquoProponents of these laws contend that these laws are usefulbecause they deter fraud and these laws are ensuring that we donrsquot have voter fraudrdquo she saysldquoTheyrsquore not wrong in caring about voter fraud but actually therersquos no research to support thatthese laws have any impact on voter fraudrdquo
Based on what Lajevardi has researched she believes that the ballot amendment in Missouri ifpassed would be among the strictest photo ID laws in the country The research and data thatshe used to come to that conclusion comes from the National Conference of State Legislaturersquoswebsite
Some Missouri voters believe the law will pass when it appears on ballots Nov 8 becauseMissouri generally favors conservatism They feel as if the amendment will pass partially becauseof the notion that people need identification for nearly everything
State Sen Kraus echoes this sentiment and says that in todayrsquos society everyone has an ID ldquoYouneed an ID to buy tobacco alcohol to get Sudafed cash a check and open a bank accountrdquo Kraussays ldquoYou have to have a photo IDrdquo
Although the measure exempts individuals with disabilities those born prior to 1946 and thosewith religious objections to being photographed the Kander report estimates that some 220000people could be impacted by such a law 2012 figures from the Missouri Secretary of State officeapproximate there are 419 million registered voters in Missouri
Missouri college students attempting to use university IDs to vote would be included in thisnumber because such IDs would not be valid under the law The measure also says that the statewill pay for IDs and any source documents needed to obtain them (a lesson learned from thefailed 2006 voter-ID bid) Such fees are one of several issues opponents of voter-ID laws raisecomparing them to ldquopoll-taxesrdquo a comparison that is also intended to evoke minority voterdiscrimination of the past
In the present as well as the very near future questions about identification for Missouri votersstill linger Does the need to ensure the integrity of a fundamental democratic process outweighthe possibility of marginalized citizens being further marginalized Is a yes vote on Nov 8worth all the legal challenges and tie-ups that could take place down the road What will thefuture effects of such a measure be
Is a utility bill or verbal confirmation of identity from election officials enough Considering thisquestion is being asked in the Show-Me State months from the day of the vote the final answercould well be no
A 10-year history of voter ID battles
Show-Me IDShow-Me ID
A DV E RT I S E M E NT
that the Missouri rate for counting ballots was higher than 22 other states and was significantlyhigher than the national rate of 241 percent of rejected provisional ballots
North Carolinarsquos solution to the provisional ballot problem was clear-cut Per a 2013 Winston-Salem Journal article ldquovoters will no longer have their votes counted if they use a provisionalballot outside their correct precinctrdquo Voting outside of a preassigned sector is one factor thatoften leads to a provisional ballot Additionally the 2013 North Carolina voter ID law passed bya Republican-majority General Assembly cut down on early voting did away with same-dayregistration banned out-of-precinct voting and put an end to preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds
In April 2016 US District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder (a 2007 President George W Bushappointee) upheld the law and pushed back against arguments from the North Carolina NAACPand the Justice Department by ruling the plaintiffs ldquofailed to show that such disparities will havematerially adverse effects on the ability of minority voters to cast a ballot and effectively exercisethe electoral franchiserdquo (On June 21 the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit considered thecase to reverse Judge Schroederrsquos ruling)
Even when such laws are struck down some states continue to challenge judicial decsions Texasis one of those states According to the Brennan Center for Justice ldquothe 5th Circuit Court ofAppeals unanimously affirmed a federal trial courtrsquos earlier finding that Texasrsquo strict photo ID lawviolates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Actrdquo But Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxtonhas continued to challenge the case
Although itrsquos tempting to paint these voter-ID laws in partisan strokes as purely Republicaninventions passage does reach across the aisle In 2011 in Rhode Island then-Gov LincolnChaffee signed a voter-ID bill which had been passed by a Democratic legislature into law Sincethe billrsquos passage opponents have pointed to cases of voter disenfranchisement and argued that itimpacts Rhode Islandrsquos growing Latino population
Speaking with WGBH-Boston Pablo Rodriguez of the Rhode Island Latino Political ActionCommittee argued that the move was made by ldquoincumbents that are concerned about the numberof Latinos moving into their districts and threatening their own positions as legislatorsrdquo
WHO IS IMPACTED
Although there are notable outliers when it comes to the supposed partisanship of such bills theblatancy of minority voter-disenfranchisement is consistent across states A University ofCalifornia-San Diego research study ldquoVoter Identification Laws and the Suppression of MinorityVotesrdquo found that ldquostrict photo identification laws have a differentially negative impact on theturnout of Hispanics blacks and mixed-race Americans in primaries and general electionsrdquo
The model developed by the studyrsquos authors Zoltan Hajnal Nazita Lajevardi and LindsayNielson focused on turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and used the validated votefrom Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) Their model compared individualturnout in states with strict voter-ID laws (states that require a photo ID to cast a regular ballot)to individual turnout in other states after ldquocontrolling for other state level electoral laws thatencourage or discourage participationrdquo The authors also considered the election context by stateand district as well as demographic characteristics that impacted elections
In their model general election Latino turnout was predicted to be 103 points lower in stateswith strict photo-ID regulations than in states without such restrictions For multiracialAmericans turnout was 128 points lower under strict photo-ID laws Naturalized citizens were127 percent less likely to vote in general elections and 36 percent less likely to vote in primariesin strict photo-ID states ldquoWe had a gut instinct that voter-ID laws had an effectrdquo Lajevardi saysldquoVoter requirement laws traditionally over the past couple of centuries have had stark negativeeffectsrdquo
Outside of ethnic and racial minorities individuals across platforms appear to be stymied byvoter-ID laws According to the model Democratic turnout drops by ldquoan estimated 77percentage points in general elections when strict photo identification laws are in placerdquo Thehypothesized decline for Republicans is about 46 percent Additionally photo-ID laws are linkedto a reduction in voter turnout in primaries of Americans without high school degrees
Checking IDs
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY RYAN BERRY AND ASHLEY REESE
Even knowing the negative impacts of voter-ID laws Lajevardi still understands the reasonlegislators attempt to pass them ldquoProponents of these laws contend that these laws are usefulbecause they deter fraud and these laws are ensuring that we donrsquot have voter fraudrdquo she saysldquoTheyrsquore not wrong in caring about voter fraud but actually therersquos no research to support thatthese laws have any impact on voter fraudrdquo
Based on what Lajevardi has researched she believes that the ballot amendment in Missouri ifpassed would be among the strictest photo ID laws in the country The research and data thatshe used to come to that conclusion comes from the National Conference of State Legislaturersquoswebsite
Some Missouri voters believe the law will pass when it appears on ballots Nov 8 becauseMissouri generally favors conservatism They feel as if the amendment will pass partially becauseof the notion that people need identification for nearly everything
State Sen Kraus echoes this sentiment and says that in todayrsquos society everyone has an ID ldquoYouneed an ID to buy tobacco alcohol to get Sudafed cash a check and open a bank accountrdquo Kraussays ldquoYou have to have a photo IDrdquo
Although the measure exempts individuals with disabilities those born prior to 1946 and thosewith religious objections to being photographed the Kander report estimates that some 220000people could be impacted by such a law 2012 figures from the Missouri Secretary of State officeapproximate there are 419 million registered voters in Missouri
Missouri college students attempting to use university IDs to vote would be included in thisnumber because such IDs would not be valid under the law The measure also says that the statewill pay for IDs and any source documents needed to obtain them (a lesson learned from thefailed 2006 voter-ID bid) Such fees are one of several issues opponents of voter-ID laws raisecomparing them to ldquopoll-taxesrdquo a comparison that is also intended to evoke minority voterdiscrimination of the past
In the present as well as the very near future questions about identification for Missouri votersstill linger Does the need to ensure the integrity of a fundamental democratic process outweighthe possibility of marginalized citizens being further marginalized Is a yes vote on Nov 8worth all the legal challenges and tie-ups that could take place down the road What will thefuture effects of such a measure be
Is a utility bill or verbal confirmation of identity from election officials enough Considering thisquestion is being asked in the Show-Me State months from the day of the vote the final answercould well be no
A 10-year history of voter ID battles
Show-Me IDShow-Me ID
A DV E RT I S E M E NT
WHO IS IMPACTED
Although there are notable outliers when it comes to the supposed partisanship of such bills theblatancy of minority voter-disenfranchisement is consistent across states A University ofCalifornia-San Diego research study ldquoVoter Identification Laws and the Suppression of MinorityVotesrdquo found that ldquostrict photo identification laws have a differentially negative impact on theturnout of Hispanics blacks and mixed-race Americans in primaries and general electionsrdquo
The model developed by the studyrsquos authors Zoltan Hajnal Nazita Lajevardi and LindsayNielson focused on turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and used the validated votefrom Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) Their model compared individualturnout in states with strict voter-ID laws (states that require a photo ID to cast a regular ballot)to individual turnout in other states after ldquocontrolling for other state level electoral laws thatencourage or discourage participationrdquo The authors also considered the election context by stateand district as well as demographic characteristics that impacted elections
In their model general election Latino turnout was predicted to be 103 points lower in stateswith strict photo-ID regulations than in states without such restrictions For multiracialAmericans turnout was 128 points lower under strict photo-ID laws Naturalized citizens were127 percent less likely to vote in general elections and 36 percent less likely to vote in primariesin strict photo-ID states ldquoWe had a gut instinct that voter-ID laws had an effectrdquo Lajevardi saysldquoVoter requirement laws traditionally over the past couple of centuries have had stark negativeeffectsrdquo
Outside of ethnic and racial minorities individuals across platforms appear to be stymied byvoter-ID laws According to the model Democratic turnout drops by ldquoan estimated 77percentage points in general elections when strict photo identification laws are in placerdquo Thehypothesized decline for Republicans is about 46 percent Additionally photo-ID laws are linkedto a reduction in voter turnout in primaries of Americans without high school degrees
Checking IDs
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY RYAN BERRY AND ASHLEY REESE
Even knowing the negative impacts of voter-ID laws Lajevardi still understands the reasonlegislators attempt to pass them ldquoProponents of these laws contend that these laws are usefulbecause they deter fraud and these laws are ensuring that we donrsquot have voter fraudrdquo she saysldquoTheyrsquore not wrong in caring about voter fraud but actually therersquos no research to support thatthese laws have any impact on voter fraudrdquo
Based on what Lajevardi has researched she believes that the ballot amendment in Missouri ifpassed would be among the strictest photo ID laws in the country The research and data thatshe used to come to that conclusion comes from the National Conference of State Legislaturersquoswebsite
Some Missouri voters believe the law will pass when it appears on ballots Nov 8 becauseMissouri generally favors conservatism They feel as if the amendment will pass partially becauseof the notion that people need identification for nearly everything
State Sen Kraus echoes this sentiment and says that in todayrsquos society everyone has an ID ldquoYouneed an ID to buy tobacco alcohol to get Sudafed cash a check and open a bank accountrdquo Kraussays ldquoYou have to have a photo IDrdquo
Although the measure exempts individuals with disabilities those born prior to 1946 and thosewith religious objections to being photographed the Kander report estimates that some 220000people could be impacted by such a law 2012 figures from the Missouri Secretary of State officeapproximate there are 419 million registered voters in Missouri
Missouri college students attempting to use university IDs to vote would be included in thisnumber because such IDs would not be valid under the law The measure also says that the statewill pay for IDs and any source documents needed to obtain them (a lesson learned from thefailed 2006 voter-ID bid) Such fees are one of several issues opponents of voter-ID laws raisecomparing them to ldquopoll-taxesrdquo a comparison that is also intended to evoke minority voterdiscrimination of the past
In the present as well as the very near future questions about identification for Missouri votersstill linger Does the need to ensure the integrity of a fundamental democratic process outweighthe possibility of marginalized citizens being further marginalized Is a yes vote on Nov 8worth all the legal challenges and tie-ups that could take place down the road What will thefuture effects of such a measure be
Is a utility bill or verbal confirmation of identity from election officials enough Considering thisquestion is being asked in the Show-Me State months from the day of the vote the final answercould well be no
A 10-year history of voter ID battles
Show-Me IDShow-Me ID
A DV E RT I S E M E NT
Even knowing the negative impacts of voter-ID laws Lajevardi still understands the reasonlegislators attempt to pass them ldquoProponents of these laws contend that these laws are usefulbecause they deter fraud and these laws are ensuring that we donrsquot have voter fraudrdquo she saysldquoTheyrsquore not wrong in caring about voter fraud but actually therersquos no research to support thatthese laws have any impact on voter fraudrdquo
Based on what Lajevardi has researched she believes that the ballot amendment in Missouri ifpassed would be among the strictest photo ID laws in the country The research and data thatshe used to come to that conclusion comes from the National Conference of State Legislaturersquoswebsite
Some Missouri voters believe the law will pass when it appears on ballots Nov 8 becauseMissouri generally favors conservatism They feel as if the amendment will pass partially becauseof the notion that people need identification for nearly everything
State Sen Kraus echoes this sentiment and says that in todayrsquos society everyone has an ID ldquoYouneed an ID to buy tobacco alcohol to get Sudafed cash a check and open a bank accountrdquo Kraussays ldquoYou have to have a photo IDrdquo
Although the measure exempts individuals with disabilities those born prior to 1946 and thosewith religious objections to being photographed the Kander report estimates that some 220000people could be impacted by such a law 2012 figures from the Missouri Secretary of State officeapproximate there are 419 million registered voters in Missouri
Missouri college students attempting to use university IDs to vote would be included in thisnumber because such IDs would not be valid under the law The measure also says that the statewill pay for IDs and any source documents needed to obtain them (a lesson learned from thefailed 2006 voter-ID bid) Such fees are one of several issues opponents of voter-ID laws raisecomparing them to ldquopoll-taxesrdquo a comparison that is also intended to evoke minority voterdiscrimination of the past
In the present as well as the very near future questions about identification for Missouri votersstill linger Does the need to ensure the integrity of a fundamental democratic process outweighthe possibility of marginalized citizens being further marginalized Is a yes vote on Nov 8worth all the legal challenges and tie-ups that could take place down the road What will thefuture effects of such a measure be
Is a utility bill or verbal confirmation of identity from election officials enough Considering thisquestion is being asked in the Show-Me State months from the day of the vote the final answercould well be no
A 10-year history of voter ID battles
Show-Me IDShow-Me ID
A DV E RT I S E M E NT
A 10-year history of voter ID battles
Show-Me IDShow-Me ID
A DV E RT I S E M E NT
A DV E RT I S E M E NT
