Elections: Voter ID Law-Affidavit Requirement

The state adopted a voter ID law allowing voters to identify themselves by, among other options, executing a specified affidavit and presenting certain forms of non-photographic identification. The state appealed from the judgment declaring the affidavit requirement of the voter ID law unconstitutional and enjoining the state from disseminating materials indicating that photo ID would be required to vote.

Although the state had a legitimate interest in confirming a voter’s identity and eligibility to vote, the affidavit requirement was unconstitutional because it would require individuals to sign an affidavit that the court found misleading and contradictory in order to vote and therefore was not a reasonable means of accomplishing the goal of combating voter fraud.

Powell, J., dissenting: “If the affidavit requirement set forth in section 155.4271 is ambiguous, contradictory and unconstitutional as the principal opinion proclaims, the opinion errs in severing the entire affidavit requirement without also severing the non-photo identification option set out in section 115.427.2 in its entirety. Because the legislature would not have enacted the non-photo identification option without an accompanying affidavit requirement, the principal opinion’s remedy is contrary to law.”

Judgment is affirmed

Priorities USA v. State (MLW No. 74416/Case No. SC97470 – 30 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Russell, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Cole County, Callahan, J. (Solicitor D. John Sauer, Deputy Solicitor General Zachary M. Bluestone, Deputy Solicitor General Peter T. Reed, and Ryan L. Bangert, Jefferson City; Frank Jung and Khristine A. Heisinger, Jefferson City, for appellant) (Don M. Downing and Jack A Downing, St. Louis; Charles W. Hatfield and Jeremy A. Root, Jefferson City; Marc E. Elias and Uzoma N. Nkwonta, Washington, D.C., for appellees)