This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, July 8, 2011 - At least two additional suits have been filed challenging various aspects of the Missouri's proposed photo ID requirement for voters, which will be on the 2012 ballot.
One suit takes issue with state Auditor Tom Schweich's estimate that it could cost up to $6.5 million a year to implement the proposal, while the other questions the summary statement that will appear on the ballot.
Both suits were filed Thursday in Cole County Circuit Court, where a coalition of voting-rights groups earlier filed a lawsuit that questions the ballot language and the constitutionality of the proposed photo ID mandate.
One of the new suits was filed by Jack Hembree, a Democratic activist in Springfield, Mo., while the other was filed by Courtney Lauer, a student at Columbia College. The details of the suits are not yet available.
A spokeswoman for state Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, R-Dexter, confirmed this morning that they are aware of the additional suits.
As the Beacon reported earlier:
State Auditor Tom Schweich's surprisingly hefty estimate of the annual government cost of Missouri's proposed photo ID requirement for voters has some Republican legislative leaders now fearing that the proposal could be a tougher sell when it hits ballots in 2012.
A spokeswoman for state Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer, R-Dexter, said he even briefly considered filing suit by today's 5 p.m. deadline in a last-ditch attempt to get the estimate changed.
Mayer has dropped the idea of filing suit himself. But his spokeswoman notes that any Missouri resident can go to court to challenge the cost estimate -- ranging from $3 million to $6.5 million a year.
Mayer is particularly disturbed, the spokeswoman said, because the cost estimate is based on the details laid out in the companion implementation bill,Senate Bill 3, that Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed June 17.
A revised implementation measure may have a lower cost, said Farrah Fite, spokeswoman for Mayer and the Senate's Republican caucus. "We just want to make sure that the information voters have is accurate," she said.
Fite acknowledged that the cost estimate -- officially called a "fiscal note'' -- might turn off some voters.
Meanwhile, a coalition of voting-rights groups announced today that it has filed suit in hopes of getting the entire proposal tossed off the 2012 ballot. The groups contend in a statement that the measure is "an attempt to circumvent the Missouri Supreme Court's 2006 ruling that restrictive photo ID voting laws are unconstitutional."
The suit was filed in Cole County on Wednesday, the coalition said. The plaintiffs include eight current Missouri voters, some elderly or disabled, who say they would face challenges in obtaining the documents needed to acquire the government-issued photo ID that would be required should the proposed constitutional amendment become law.
Denise Lieberman, senior attorney for the Advancement Project, which focuses on voting rights, said the suit is the first filed in more than 30 states where photo ID requirements have recently been approved or are under consideration.
The suit contends that the Missouri proposal's summary statement, which would appear on the ballot, is inaccurate, misleading and unfair because it refers to the proposed photo ID requirement as the "Voter Protection Act."
"It deceives and misleads voters,'' the suit asserts, as to how they could be affected by the proposed constitutional change and the photo ID requirement.
Robert Brandon, president of the Fair Elections Legal Network, a non-partisan network of election attorneys and part of the coalition filing suit, said: "The Missouri Legislature claims the proposed amendment would 'protect' voters, but in reality, it would weaken the constitutional protections of the right to vote. Missourians deserve a ballot title that fairly and honestly summarizes what they are being asked to vote on."
Lieberman said the proposal's summary statement also wrongly implies that its approval is needed to allow early voting in Missouri. The General Assembly already has the power to allow early voting, but has chosen not to do so, she said.
State Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, was the chief sponsor of the proposal. In a statement, he blasted the lawsuit and defended the proposed photo ID requirement.
"The ballot title approved by a majority of lawmakers is clear, concise and says that voters are deciding whether or not Missouri's Legislature should have the ability to set the guidelines for early voting and require photo identification in order to vote," Stouffer said. "The question well represents the constitutional amendment voters will consider. Unfortunately, some special interests will do whatever they can to allow fraudulent voting in our state. We believe Missouri voters will join us in making sure every honest vote counts by requiring photo ID at the polls."
State House Speaker Steve Tilley, R-Perryville, also criticized the suit in a statement issued late Thurday. "I'm extremely disappointed, but not surprised, that liberal special interests have decided to play politics with this important measure that will protect the sanctity of Missouri's election process,'' Tilley said. "The ballot language could not be clearer and I believe that it's important that we let the people, not the courts, decide whether or not photo identification should be required to vote."
Cost Took Senate Leader by Surprise
The proposal's estimated high cost might have remained an issue even if Nixon had OKed the implementation bill.
According to the state auditor's website, the ballot measure with the fiscal note was forwarded to the secretary of state's office by June 23 -- five days after the governor's veto of the companion implementation bill.
But Schweich said in an interview this morning that his office actually completed the fiscal note by June 14, three days before Nixon's veto. The June 14 date was the last day to be in compliance with the state law that gives the auditor 20 days to write the fiscal note after formally receiving the ballot proposal from the legislature.
The June 23 date officially cited by his office, said Schweich, apparently refers to when Attorney General Chris Koster's office had completed its subsequent review of the ballot proposal and sent it on to Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. She formally certified the proposal -- with the fiscal note -- on June 27.
In any case, Mayer's staff just became aware of the fiscal-note issue this week.
Fite said one of Mayer's top aides had been on vacation when the certified ballot proposal -- featuring the fiscal note -- had arrived in the Senate leader's office early last week, as required by law. As a result, the documents went unnoticed for days.
Since discovering the estimated cost Tuesday, Mayer even has had lawyers look into whether Carnahan could decertify the ballot proposal so that the fiscal note could be lowered.
But a Carnahan spokesman said late Wednesday she is legally barred from doing so. "There is no process in the state statutes to decertify a ballot title once it is certified,'' said the spokesman, Abe Rakov.
By law, Carnahan's staff sent an official copy of the certified ballot measure to Mayer's office because the proposed constitutional amendment had originated in the Senate.
The issue of the note's accuracy could be moot, should the Republican-controlled General Assembly vote to override Nixon's veto of the implementation bill when legislators meet during the September veto session. In that case, Schweich stands by his office's cost estimate.
Said Schweich: "We're in a unique and odd situation where the (fiscal) note was accurate when it was written, but it's now been called into question. What I'm trying to do is ensure that what we present to voters is accurate."
Discord Continues over Photo ID Issue
The certified ballot measure began as a "joint resolution'' approved by the the General Assembly in May. The resolution asks Missouri voters in 2012 to approve a change in Missouri's constitution to require voters in future elections to produce government-issued photo identification. The proposal also authorizes the General Assembly to work out the details.
The constitutional change is required because the Missouri Supreme Court tossed out an earlier photo ID requirement in 2006, citing constitutional issues.
A joint resolution goes straight to the ballot without any action by Nixon. He opposes the photo ID requirement -- or, at least, the proposed implementation of it.
Mayer and other Republican legislators, along with former Gov. Matt Blunt, are among Republicans around the country who contend that government-issued photo identification would guard against possible voter fraud. They note that many activities, such as boarding an airplane or cashing a check, already require a photo ID.
Nixon, Carnahan and many other Democrats say there's no evidence of the type of vote fraud that could be prevented with photo IDs. They contend that the GOP's real target are Democratic-leaning voting blocs -- notably the elderly, the disabled, minorities and the poor -- who are less likely to have government-issued photo identification, such as drivers licenses or passports.
Carnahan has emphasized for several years that more than 200,000 registered voters in Missouri lack drivers licenses, the most prevalent form of government-issued photo ID.
Nixon and Carnahan have noted that Missouri already requires voter identification but has a broad spectrum of the non-photo types that are allowed, including utility bills.
Their arguments are shared by the coalition filing suit to toss the proposal off the 2012 ballot, as well as Democratic legislators who fought against the proposal last session. They include state Rep. Stacey Newman, D-Richmond Heights.
"Republican state lawmakers crafted deceptive ballot language in SJR 2 in an attempt to trick voters into granting the GOP-controlled General Assembly the power to strip more than 200,000 Missourians of the right to vote," Newman said. "The so-called 'Voter Protection Act' referred to in the deceptive ballot language does not exist -- either in the actual wording of the proposed constitutional amendment or in the reality of what it would do if ratified, which is prevent many legal voters from casting a ballot. There is little question that the court will see the Republican chicanery for what it is and invalidate this language."
The implementation bill restricted acceptable identification to a handful of government-issued photo IDs, such as drivers licenses, passports and military IDs. The bill vetoed by Nixon also laid out the procedures for making government-issued photo IDs available to people now without them.
Schweich's annual cost estimate took into account the fact that local governments and state agencies would have to foot the cost for providing at no cost to the public such items as birth certificates, which generally are needed to obtain government-issued IDs.
The fiscal note also reflects the estimated costs of another provision of the proposed constitutional amendment, which would authorize early voting, not now allowed in Missouri unless people meet certain requirements for casting absentee ballots.
Fite said the vetoed implementation bill stipulated how many polling places would need to be open for early voting; a subsequent bill may call for fewer polling spots, which Fite said would reduce the estimated cost.
In any case, the current fiscal note is expected to remain as part of the ballot language, unless a lawsuit asserts otherwise. And the cost estimate may or may not be accurate, depending on further actions by the General Assembly -- beginning with that expected veto override attempt in September.
An even larger factor could be the lawsuit filed by the voting-rights groups.
