Missouri lawmakers this week are working to rush legislation that would prevent up to 240,000 Missourians from voting. The proposed legislation would make Missouri one of the toughest states in the country for eligible citizens who want to vote by requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. If passed, these changes could be in place by the November general election.
Joint Resolution 48 passed the Missouri House yesterday on a party-line 88-69 vote and now awaits action in the Senate. If passed, it would place a referendum before the voters in August which, if approved, would go into effect for the November 2008 election.

This resolution is superfluous for Missouri, where proponents have yet to show a single case of voter impersonation from recent elections, yet imposes high burdens on eligible voters to comply, as noted by Denise Lieberman, a lawyer and voter protection advocate with Advancement Project in Missouri.

"Missouri already has a voter identification law that ensures that eligible voters are who they say they are on Election Day. Even if photo IDs are provided free of cost, obtaining the underlying documents needed to prove your identity costs money and can be difficult or impossible to obtain. No Missourian should be deprived of the right to vote because government bureaucracy will not provide them a copy of their birth certificate."

Lillie Lewis, St. Louis resident, knows that frustration.

"I have tried everything to get a copy of my birth certificate," says Lewis, "but Mississippi says they have no record of my birth."

Although she believes she was born in 1935, the social security administration says her year of birth was 1936. Because she is not able to obtain a birth certificate and because of the confusion surrounding her birth, Mrs. Lewis may not be able to vote under the proposed voter photo ID law.

Statistics on Proof of Citizenship
A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that 52 percent of married women don’t have a birth certificate in their current name, and 17 percent of citizens age 65 and over don’t have access to citizenship documents. That translates into 600,000 Missouri women and 17,000 Missouri seniors.

Further, a February Rock the Vote survey also showed that 19 percent of citizens age 18-29 do not have their current address on their ID. Establishing these rigid documentation requirements could keep hundreds of thousands of Missourians from casting a vote at the polls this November.

A Taste of What’s To Come?
At Tuesday’s Indiana primary twelve nuns were turned away from the polls because they lacked the needed government-issued photo IDs to vote. When Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary in St. Louis heard the story, she did an informal survey of 35 nuns in her convent. Fifteen did not have state-issued photo IDs.

"This may sound like a good idea at first," stated Sister Schwartz, "but once you stop to think about who would really be affected, this is going to keep a lot of our loved ones from being able to vote."

Sister Schwartz and others are concerned that strict documentary identification requirements would create hardships for Missouri nuns and other senior citizens.

Taking Action
Missourians for Fair Elections, a coalition of voting rights groups that includes the League of Women Voters, AARP and others, convened in St. Louis yesterday to encourage the Missouri State Senate to vote the legislation down. Supporters included Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and citizens who would not meet the law’s strict documentation requirements.  

If you would like to know what you can do about this issue, contact Laura Egerdal, Missourians for Fair Elections at 314-363-5571.

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns and Nathan Henderson-James

Project Vote normally uses this update to give news roundups on voting rights-related stories from the past week. However, with the reverberations from the Supreme Court’s Crawford vs. Marion County voter identification decision just starting to filter down into statehouses across the country, we felt it was necessary to spend this update concentrating solely on voter ID, giving progressives a concise summary of the problems associated with it and offer some framing devices to help fight against it.

Although voter turnout in presidential primaries has been at an all time high across the nation, voter ID laws bode ill for electoral participation in the future, especially in races that are not subject to the kind of energy and excitement engulfing the contested Democratic nominating contests.

Supporters of strict voter ID requirements often invoke the ease of obtaining ID in order to dismiss any opposition to their measures. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia asserted that the burden of obtaining photo identification in order to vote is "minimal and justified," in his opinion upholding Indiana's voter ID law last week. But at least 21 million Americans without valid ID have a different idea of what the Justices deem "minimal". These real people include several elderly nuns and college students in South Bend, Indiana who were turned away from the polls for lacking proper ID Tuesday.

However, to engage solely on the relative size of the barrier to exercising the foundational right of American democracy is to miss the larger frame. Fundamentally, strict voter ID laws exist to stop otherwise eligible people from voting. The battle should not be about the size of the barrier, but about the existence of the barrier in the first place.

For example, many supporters of strict voter ID note that one needs photo ID to board a plane, or obtain a bank loan, or even get a membership at the gym. The difference between these privileges and voting is that voting is a right of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution. Joining 24 Hour Fitness is not. To declare that we must overcome hurdles to exercise our fundamental democratic right as citizens is a conservative frame designed to case voting as a privilege to be awarded by partisan politicians rather than a right which government at all levels has a responsibility to facilitate, not block.  

Here is how voter ID blocks the right to vote, as illustrated in Indiana by the Associated Press on Tuesday.

Voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem

"The Republican-led effort was designed to combat ballot fraud, said supporters, who have also acknowledged that no case involving someone impersonating a voter at the polls has ever been prosecuted in Indiana," wrote AP reporter, Deborah Hastings Tuesday.

This fact, coupled with a 2007 study by the University of Washington, which found 21.8% of Indiana's black voters and 22% of young voters do not have valid ID, should raise questions on why such a law exists in the first place.

Nationally, 21 million Americans of voting age do not have valid, government issued photo ID, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. This proportion is higher for specific groups, including 6 million elderly citizens and 5.5 million voting-age blacks.

Nationally, between 2002 and 2005, only 24 people were convicted of voter fraud on the federal level. During that same period of time, more than 200 million votes were case in federal elections. Twenty-four convictions from 200 million votes hardly indicates a problem that demands a solution that stops more people from voting than it facilitates.

As these numbers show, Americans take voting seriously and do not misrepresent themselves at the polls. Politicians shouldn't misrepresent the facts to justify unnecessary voter ID laws. With no evidence of voter fraud and a disproportionate burden on certain groups, voter ID laws have nothing positive to offer. Existing laws provide plenty of protection to ensure voting integrity. The only possible conclusion to draw for enacting a law that does not stop the problem it purports to address while simultaneously stopping otherwise eligible citizens from voting is that partisans want to select the electorate that votes, rather than allowing the electorate to select its own representatives. In other words, this is about stopping specific groups of people from participating, rather than addressing any problem with elections in the United States.

Americans have a right to vote, even if they do not have a photo ID

About 12 Indiana nuns, a newly married woman, and at least a dozen students were turned away from the polls in South Bend, Indiana on Tuesday for not having state or federal-issued, photographic proof of identity that reflected their legal names and current residences as recorded on the state's voter rolls, according to Hastings.

Each of these citizens was born with the right to vote once they reach voting age, but none of them had the newly required documents to do so. Lawmakers and many Americans claim that "state IDs are cheap and easy to get" and that it is a simple price to pay to maintain integrity of elections. However, although state IDs are cheap – around $20 – proof of citizenship documents required for state ID applications are not.

Seven percent of all American citizens lack access to citizenship documentation. This problem disproportionately affects those who earn less than $25,000 per year.  Replacement birth certificates can exceed $40. A passport costs $97. For naturalized Americans, replacement citizenship documents cost $220. All of these financial burdens are layered on top of the need to deal with state or federal bureaucracies, which often involves taking time off from work, traveling to distant offices, and standing in long lines.

Again, however, debating the size, shape, and color of the barrier to the right to vote, should be accompanied by a frame that questions the necessity of the barrier in the first place. Remember, unlike other rights, such as speech, government controls all the mechanisms by which the right to vote is exercised. So, if assuring ballot integrity is a worthy goal - and Project Vote agrees that it is -  laws that create barriers must prove that they are not hindering more eligible citizens from voting than they are catching ineligible voters.  Given the infrequency of voter fraud in America and the burdens associated with complying with strict voter ID laws, they clearly fail this cost-benefit test.

Voter ID and Proof of Citizenship laws are part of a partisan effort disenfranchise select groups of voters

Since the beginning of voting, partisans have tried to bend the rules to maintain power. This deeply self-interested approach to voting has been a part of America’s contested political culture since the original Constitution denied women and blacks the right to vote and is still seen frequently during close electoral contests.

Requiring voters to show photo ID is just one of many hurdles partisans put up to make it more difficult for certain people to vote. Underrepresented groups are encouraged to stay that way through long lines at polling places, partisan vote challenges and vote caging, faulty or inadequate equipment, and poorly trained poll workers in addition to the imposition of onerous voter ID requirements. Forty-three years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the poll tax is making a comeback.

But, the most insidious part of strict voter ID laws is not the direct effect they have on specific voters turned away from the polls. It is on the spread of disinformation, fear, and intimidation among under-served populations that will deter large portions of them from participating in future elections. According to Hastings, one 19-year-old Notre Dame student, Angela Hiss, said she was turned away on Tuesday after providing her school ID and Illinois driver's license without being offered a provisional ballot, as required by law. Widespread coverage of this incident will discourage similarly situated voters from participating in the future.

Further, the focus on the non-issue of voter impersonation distracts from real systemic problems such as the failure of poll workers at Hiss’ polling place to follow other aspects of election law governing the use of provisional ballots. These kinds of errors disenfranchise far more people than have ever been denied the right to vote through voter impersonation..

The right to vote and have that vote counted has been under assault for the past eight years by partisans who put their electoral success above that right. The recent scandals involving the firings of the US Attorneys at the Department of Justice stand in stark testament to this fact.  The issue is not that voter fraud is prevalent or that voter ID is easy to obtain, as it is clear that neither is true. The ultimate issue is the strength of American democracy. Will we allow partisans to erect barriers to voting or will we demand our elected representatives stand up for our intrinsic rights as American citizens -  rights that as recently as 40 years ago people died to see defended?

Quick Links:

Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans' Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification. Brennan Center for Justice. 2006.

The Disproportionate Impact of Indiana Voter ID Requirements on the Electorate. University of Washington. University of Washington. November 2007.

The Politics of Voter Fraud. Project Vote. March 2007.

In Other News:

Mo. voters may decide on photo ID requirement - St. Louis Post-Dispatch
JEFFERSON CITY - Voters could decide whether to enact a photo ID requirement for voting under a proposed constitutional amendment given first-round approval Wednesday by the Missouri House.

Voter ID bill dies in Senate - Tulsa World
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Senate Democrats killed a bill Tuesday that would have required voters to show identification at the polls.

Heavy voting causes Ind. ballot shortages, delays tallies - Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS - Voters energized by the Democratic presidential race turned out in record numbers for Indiana's primary Tuesday, causing scattered ballot shortages across the state.

Erin Ferns is a research and policy analyst with Project Vote’s Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD). Nathan Henderson-James is SWORD’s director.