Senate approves legislation to require photo ID for voters

Missourians would be required to present a state-issued photo ID to vote under a bill passed by the House Elections Committee and Senate this week.

In 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court declared a similar law requiring photo IDs to vote unconstitutional. This time, Republicans in both the House and Senate are proposing putting an amendment about photo identification in the state constitution.

The House Elections Committee approved the bill 7-3 along party lines after hearing nearly two hours of testimony from opponents on Tuesday (Feb. 15).

The Senate approved and sent to the House legislation to implement a photo ID. The underlying constitutional amendment was given first-round approval by the Senate, but awaits a formal vote to send it to the House. To take effect, a constitutional amendment requires statewide voter approval.

Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, who sponsored the proposal in the Senate, said that photo IDs are already a standard in society.

"It just brings about integrity of our voting," Stouffer said. "We're not trying to suppress any votes; we're not trying to create any problems."

Rep. Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia, agreed with Stouffer, saying it is not unreasonable to ask Missourians to have a photo ID, which he said will help prevent voter fraud.

"The idea that someone might be able to manipulate the system, either through identification or otherwise, is a reason that causes people not to want to participate," Cox said.

Denise Lieberman, an attorney for the voter rights advocacy group Advancement Project, said the bill would create unnecessary obstacles for Missouri voters and prevent some eligible voters from casting a ballot.

"Missouri already requires voters to show ID," Lieberman said. "Missouri already has one of the stricter voter ID laws in the country. What we are talking about is actually limiting the acceptable forms of ID to a very specific, state-issued ID."

Sen. Robin Wright-Jones, D-St. Louis City, also opposes the legislation although she said she anticipates the bill will pass.

"There's no point in us putting this burden back on our citizens," said Wright-Jones. "We wound up in court before, and we have not resolved that."