Opinion ID: 1630936
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: SB 1014's Photo-ID Requirement Burdens Missourians' Fundamental Right to Vote.

Text: The record supports the trial court's determination that SB 1014's Photo-ID Requirement places a burden on the right of Missourians to vote. As set out at length above, it requires each of the individual plaintiffs in this case to present a Missouri driver's license, a Missouri non-driver's license, or a United States passport on election day in order to vote. Sec. 115.427.1. The record reveals that between 3 and 4 percent of Missouri citizens (estimates vary from 169,215 to 240,000 individuals) lack the requisite photo ID. Appellants concede that many of these citizens, including all of the individual plaintiffs in this case, are eligible to vote and, in many cases, are already registered to vote. Nevertheless, under the new law these eligible registered voters will not be able to cast a regular ballot (or after 2008 any ballot at all) unless they undertake to obtain one of the requisite photo IDs. This will constitute a dramatic increase in provisional ballots over the previous law, as only 8,000 provisional ballots were cast statewide in the 2004 general election. [17] As conceded by Appellants, denial of the right to vote to these Missourians is more than a de minimis burden on their suffrage. [18] It is to these citizens that the Court directs its attention, as it determines whether this statute places into jeopardy their ability to exercise their fundamental right to vote under article I, section 25 of the Missouri Constitution. To do so, the Court must examine the required processes for them to obtain a photo ID to determine the extent of the burden it imposes on their right to vote.
Those citizens who do not possess the requisite photo ID, with few exceptions, must expend money to gather the necessary documentation to obtain it in order to exercise their right to vote. Appellants argue that because the documentation-related expenses are one step removed from obtaining the photo ID, which itself is free, those expenses should not be considered in this Court's analysis. The fact that Missouri has waived collection of costs normally charged to persons seeking a non-driver's license does not make that license free if Missourians without certified copies of birth certificates or passports must still expend sums of money to obtain the license. Many voters who presently lack one of the required photo IDs would have to, at the very least, expend money to obtain a birth certificate. In Missouri, obtaining a birth certificate requires at least a $15 payment, which, Appellants conceded at oral argument, is not a de minimis cost. If the citizen requires documentation beyond a birth certificate, the costs are greater. Although this Court has not previously had occasion to evaluate the validity of putting a direct or indirect price or fee on the franchise under the Missouri Constitution, the United States Supreme Court held, in the context of addressing a $ 1.50 poll tax: Wealth or fee-paying has . . . no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened. Harper, 383 U.S. at 670 . While requiring payment to obtain a birth certificate is not a poll tax, as was the $1.50 in Harper , it is a fee that qualified, eligible, registered voters who lack an approved photo ID are required to pay in order to exercise their right to free suffrage under the Missouri Constitution. [19] Harper makes clear that all fees that impose financial burdens on eligible citizens' right to vote, not merely poll taxes, are impermissible under federal law. There can be no lesser requirement under Missouri law. Appellants highlight that the federal courts in Indiana and Georgia each rejected claims that photo ID requirements constitute a poll tax, see Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1355 (N.D. Ga. 2006) ; Ind. Democratic Party v. Rokita, No. 05-CV-0634-SEB-VSS, 2006 WL 1005037, at  (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2006), and urge this Court to do likewise. This case stands in stark contrast to the Georgia and Indiana cases, for their decisions were largely based on those courts' findings that the parties had simply presented theoretical arguments and had failed to offer specific evidence of voters who were required to bear these costs in order to exercise their right to vote. [20] Plaintiffs in this case, on the other hand, offered testimony of specific Missouri voters who will have to incur the costs associated with birth certificates and other documentation to acquire a photo ID and vote. Specifically, Plaintiff Weinschenk will have to pay $12 for her birth certificate; Plaintiff von Glahn, who was asked to pay $11 for his free non-driver's license required to vote under the statute, will have to pay another $20 for his birth certificate. Others, like Plaintiff Mullaney, may have to incur more substantial costs for additional documentation because their names have changed since their birth. Additionally, elections officials testified to the substantial number of other otherwise qualified Missouri voters who also must pay a fee in order to vote. Based on this evidence, the trial court found that this cost was directly connected to Plaintiffs' exercise of the right to vote. The trial court also found that the citizens who currently lack the requisite photo ID are generally the least equipped to bear the costs. For Missourians who live beneath the poverty line, the $15 they must pay in order to obtain their birth certificates and vote is $15 that they must subtract from their meager ability to feed, shelter, and clothe their families. The exercise of fundamental rights cannot be conditioned upon financial expense. Cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 16-19 (1956) (holding that due process and equal protection require that indigent defendants are entitled to pursue appeals without payment of costs). In this case, Plaintiffs proved that these costs must be incurred for citizens who lack the SB 1014 mandated photo IDs to exercise their right to vote.
Persons who wish to vote who do not already have the requisite photo IDs must arrange to obtain them by presenting a birth certificate or passport and, if necessary, proof of name changes. To do so requires both funds and advance planning to allow for the six to eight weeks that the record shows it takes to obtain a Missouri birth certificate (which is more time than exists between the date of this decision and the next general election). Once the birth certificate is in hand, the voter must use it to obtain one of the requisite photo IDs. This is plainly a cumbersome procedure. Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 541 (1965) (holding that six-month advance registration to avoid poll tax unduly burdened the right to vote). Those things that require substantial planning in advance of an election to preserve the right to vote can tend to eliminate from the franchise a substantial number of voters who did not plan so far ahead. Id. at 539-40. [21] Evaluating a similar procedure mandated by the Georgia photo ID law (which was found to violate the federal constitution), a Georgia federal district court concluded that many voters who are elderly, disabled, or have certain physical or mental problems simply cannot navigate that process or any long waits successfully . Common Cause/Georgia, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1347 . As it will require payment of money and significant advance planning to obtain necessary documentation, the Photo-ID Requirement is an onerous procedural requirement which effectively handicap[s] exercise of the franchise. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275 (1939) . [22] It is undisputed that between 3 and 4 percent of the population, some 169,000 to 240,000 Missourians, and each of the individual plaintiffs here, currently do not possess the type of photo ID required by SB 1014 to obtain a regular ballot to vote. This Court agrees with the trial court that the Photo-ID Requirement of SB 1014 represents a heavy and substantial burden on Missourians' free exercise of the right of suffrage.