Mo. Supreme Court hears voter ID arguments

By James Patrick Schmidt

Published Oct. 6, 2006

On Wednesday, the Missouri Supreme Court heard the opening statements of two cases that deal with the Nov. 7 election. The court heard cases contesting the inclusion of a tobacco tax initiative on the ballot and the constitutionality of the Missouri voter ID law.

Two parts of the voter ID law, which was overturned in a lower court last month, were also argued.

The first argument about the voter ID law is the restriction on what forms of photo identification are accepted at polling places as proof of identity. According to the law, a person must have a federal or state government issued ID, all of which cost money to obtain. The law also states that if someone cannot afford an ID, they can receive a free state non-driver's license.

Those opposing the law argue that it indirectly enacts a poll tax because in order to receive a birth certificate, which is necessary to be issued a state ID, a person must pay roughly $15.

The second part of the law that was deemed unconstitutional by the lower court related to violations of the Hancock Amendment, which relates to taxation and spending. The lower court specifically cited, as a violation, the creation of an unfunded mandate due to the authorization of more provisional balloting, which would cause additional costs for increased production and processing of provisional ballots without providing for the costs.

"The act doesn't require that there be an increase in provisional balloting," said Robert Presson, one of the attorneys defending the law. "It authorizes more people to cast a provisional ballot."

Presson argued that the additional costs for provisional balloting would be minimal, and, therefore, does not qualify as an unfunded mandate according to the Hancock Amendment.

Those opposed to the law also are concerned about possible disenfranchisement with the expansion of provisional ballots.

"Provisional ballots are not the same as regular ballots," said Don Downing, an attorney opposing the law.

Downing said large numbers of provisional ballots are not counted in each election.

The other case before the court involved the proposed tobacco tax initiative. The initiative, which would raise the tax on tobacco by 80 cents, was ordered onto the November ballot by a lower court after Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan said there were not enough signatures from the 5th Congressional District to place the initiative on the ballot.

The counsel opposing the initiative focused on whether signatures were valid, drawing attention to discrepancies in address and signing location.

"When you sign the petition, you must be a legal voter," said Marc Ellinger, the attorney opposing the initiative.

Ellinger said some signatures were not validated initially because the address on the petition did not match the address in the voter record, usually because of a change in address that was not updated on the voter record.

The argument was also made that the initiative itself is unconstitutional because it doesn't focus on a uniform purpose. Those defending the initiative said the initiative is constitutional.

"Everything in this amendment is working towards one uniform purpose — the raising and distributing of taxes on tobacco," said Robert Hess, a defending attorney on the initiative.