GEORGE KENNEDY: Proposed voter ID amendment is a most perplexing notion

Thursday, September 15, 2011 | 4:09 p.m. CDT; updated 4:53 p.m. CDT, Thursday, September 15, 2011

I don’t get all that many invitations, so when I was urged to attend the Constitution Day colloquy Wednesday night sponsored by the League of Women Voters, I went happily.

The League likes to stay a step ahead. On the agenda was a proposed amendment to our state constitution that won’t be on the ballot until November 2012. Constitution Day itself is actually Saturday, the 224th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. But never mind.

The amendment, approved by the legislature earlier this year, would set new and tougher identification rules for prospective voters while also allowing more voting in advance of election days.

The new identification requirements — usually referred to by the misleading shorthand of “photo ID” — are the controversial section. They’re so controversial, in fact, that they’ve already been ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. That’s why advocates are now pushing to amend the constitution itself.

Discussants were Prof. Justin Dyer, a young political scientist starting his third year on the MU faculty, and Boone County Clerk Wendy Noren, who has earned a national reputation while supervising elections here and abroad for nearly 30 years.

Their presentations were expert and nonpartisan. They enumerated pros and cons, identified winners and losers and left me pretty well convinced that we’re confronting another Republican-backed effort to disenfranchise voters most likely to be Democrats. Both speakers expect the amendment to be approved by a naïve electorate (my description, not theirs).

Prof. Dyer traced the history of the slow and painful extension of effective voting rights and outlined the arguments for and against tightened requirements.

The argument for is, of course, that more stringent identification reduces voter fraud and so protects the integrity of the democratic process. The counter is that the would-be voters most likely to be without the prescribed photo IDs tend to be the old, the poor, the minorities and students — all typically inclined to vote Democratic when they vote at all.

Ms. Noren injected wry reality. The truth is, she said, that “there hasn’t been rampant fraud” in Missouri since the days of the long-disappeared big city machines. Attempted fraud is much more likely in voter registration, which isn’t affected by the proposed rules.

She also noted that it’s impossible to remove politics from the making of election laws. The epic Voting Rights Act of 1965, for example, helped Democrats by making voters of previously excluded minorities, especially southern blacks.

She added, “People say it’s political. Well, we have a political system. Should we throw that out?” Clearly, she doesn’t think we should.

The “voter fraud” most often cited by Republicans, such as the Acorn abuses in St. Louis and elsewhere, was actually discovered before any voting took place, she pointed out. The root cause of that, which the proposed amendment doesn’t address, was the business model of paying people to collect new registrants rather than any political ideology.

Because the new identification requirements rule out some that’s now accepted (such as university-issued student ID and out-of-state driver licenses), a significant segment of Boone County voters stand to be affected.

Ms. Noren guessed that as many as 1,500 students will be turned away at the first presidential election after the new rules take effect.

And by the way, enforcement of the new rules will cost millions. In Indiana, where something similar was approved in 2007, the price so far has totaled more than $10 million. The Missouri law overturned by the court was estimated to cost $7 million in its first year.

To review, then: We’ll be voting on a set of changes that purport to address a nonexistent problem while leaving real weaknesses untouched. We’ll make it harder to vote for people who already are less likely to do so. All that at a cost of millions we don’t have.

Looks like a slam dunk to me.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


John Schultz September 15, 2011 | 9:38 p.m.

I would like to hear Wendy's reasoning for 1500 students possibly not being allowed to vote. Would that be due to them not having drivers licenses or other photo IDs? Are college IDs considered acceptable?

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock September 15, 2011 | 9:49 p.m.

If they do the right thing and think ahead they can get the correct ID well before the election. If they are not smart enough or proactive enough to do so do we really want them to vote?

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance September 15, 2011 | 10:04 p.m.

This is an "amendment" that provides a "solution" where there is no problem. Therefore they shouldn't mess with something that isn't broken. Also for the mindless Faux News crowd. Voter registration fraud is not voting fraud, so keep your canned ACORN references for another thread.

(Report Comment)
Rachel Brekhus September 16, 2011 | 9:04 a.m.

I think the reason Ms Noren was estimating 1500 students was that the driver's license would have to be a MISSOURI license. So all those students from Illinois and Texas and Kansas who didn't take the extra step of changing their driver's license would have problems; at present, their MU student ID suffices, and the Clerk's office does electronic cross-checks with other states to make sure no one is trying to vote in two places.

(Report Comment)
Dale Parker September 16, 2011 | 10:32 a.m.

I wonder if those students from Illinois, Texas, Kansas, etc would be better off maintaining their voter registration in the state where they maintain their driver license. Then the could vote absentee ballots in that state. But if they want to register to vote in Boone County, then I think it makes sense for them to also have a Missouri driver license.

On a more serious note, should we really allow anyone from Kansas to vote in Missouri?

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock September 16, 2011 | 1:56 p.m.

Good question.

(Report Comment)
Jianying Wang September 29, 2011 | 10:57 a.m.

I am not sure what this mean. "The “voter fraud” most often cited by Republicans, such as the Acorn abuses in St. Louis and elsewhere, was actually discovered before any voting took place, she pointed out." need more elaboration in here.

More than that, I want to know where we can find information about this kind of meeting. It should include more people, right? Thanks.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.