RSS Feeds RSS Feeds RSS Feeds

Court nixes ID law

The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the decision of Cole County Circuit Court on Monday when it ruled 6-1 that requiring voter IDs is unconstitutional.


Oct. 17, 2006

Out-of-state students and students without photo identifications no longer have to worry about getting one before the election.

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Cole County Circuit Court on Monday when it ruled 6-1 that requiring voter IDs is unconstitutional.

According to the opinion, the voter identification requirement violates the fundamental right to vote as prescribed in the Missouri Constitution.

"While this court fully agrees with appellants that there is a compelling state interest in preventing voter fraud, the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the photo ID requirement is not narrowly tailored to accomplish that purpose," the opinion stated.

Boone County Clerk Wendy Noren, who is in charge of elections in Columbia, said she supports the court's decision.

"I'm thrilled," Noren said. "I think this is a victory, particularly for students. They were one of the groups that I testified about because so many of them rely on a student ID for identification, and the law in Missouri would have made it impossible for students to use a student ID to vote, and I thought that was unreasonable."

Despite the photo ID requirement being overruled, there are still parts of the law that are still in effect. One of the active parts of the law restricts county clerks from issuing voter ID cards, so that anyone who has registered to vote cannot receive a voter ID card.

This does not present an immediate concern because there are many other forms of identification allowed under the present law.

"The ID requirements for voters are very broad and designed to be inclusive to make sure that no voter is prevented from voting," Noren said. "We've had these ID requirements in place for years, and the times that I've had to turn somebody down for not having identification was not because they didn't have one, but because they didn't want to go home and get one."

According to the dissenting opinion by Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr., a ruling on the permanent provisions of the law is premature because they do not take effect until 2008. His opinion stated that the provisional balloting provided for in the law is totally constitutional and severable from the rest of the law. Also, Limbaugh dissents from the majority on the need to further prevent voter fraud.

"I cannot leave unchallenged the majority's incomplete recitation of the facts pertaining to the existence of voter fraud and the need for a photo ID system to combat that fraud," the opinion stated. "According to the majority, there has been no fraud in the polling places, thus no need to prevent it."

Rep. Judy Baker, D-Columbia, said she supports the Supreme Court's decision.

"I think this is a good thing for the citizens of Missouri, especially for students who will have trouble voting in the November election," Baker said. "The law as it stood was only going to make voting more difficult, at a time when we should be making it easier to vote in Missouri."

Baker is not aware of any plans for anti-voter fraud legislation for the next session.

"If we do want to address voter fraud, we need to be looking at the absentee voting system," she said. "It has been shown that the majority of voter fraud takes place in absentee voting and not at the polls."

In addition to Limbaugh, Rep. Ed Robb, R-Columbia, also disagreed with the court's ruling.

"I just don't understand what they're talking about," he said. "The objective of the bill was to try to eliminate fraud, and I didn't think that the requirements were very onerous."

He cited the fact that one must have a photo ID in order to renew a driver's license, cash a check or use a credit card.

Robb anticipates another law to be brought before the legislature next session.

"Since this one was declared unconstitutional, we'll take a look at it and the grounds," he said. "We'll have to submit another law that handles the problems the court has with it."

Harper, Evans, Wade and Netemeyer

Share on Facebook

More Oct. 17, 2006 News Stories

Most recent News Stories