REFORMS TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO VOTING IN MISSOURI

Transcription

1 REFORMS TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO VOTING IN MISSOURI Missouri s 2010 mid-term elections are a few weeks away. As in the past, voters will have to navigate complicated registration rules, long lines, and other voting hurdles. With local election authorities strained by budget cutbacks, polling locations may close or be consolidated, resources will be in short supply, and election officials may face hurdles in effectively recruiting and training poll workers. Add to this a state and local patchwork system of maintaining voter registration, including an unnecessarily cumbersome matching process under the Help America Vote Act ( HAVA ), and voters may face the very same barriers that have produced long lines, uncounted provisional ballots and failed registrations in the past. While the secretary of state s efforts to standardize the state s election processes have improved voting for Missouri citizens, Missouri lawmakers have failed to advance comprehensive election reform necessary to eliminate ongoing barriers to the ballot. Instead of considering bills to modernize and improve election administration by establishing early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, and poll worker incentives, in 2010 lawmakers again focused on onerous and unnecessary voter identification proposals that stood to disenfranchise over 200,000 registered voters, and advanced an insufficient early voting bill that failed to address the long lines that persist in some of the state s urban election jurisdictions. With committed state and local election officials, Missouri is well-poised to improve its election administration through common-sense code revisions to clarify registration matching requirements and render the vote registration database more transparent, ensure adequate polling resources, implement effective advance and absentee voting policies, reduce unnecessary rejection of provisional ballots, improve poll worker recruitment and training, and ensure that all eligible voters are able to cast a ballot that will count. The 2008 elections saw record participation in Missouri, with over 340,000 new voters registering for the first time and a record-breaking 2.9 million ballots cast during the November general election 180,000 more than in While elections ran relatively smoothly throughout the state given the heavy turnout, Missourians continue to face a myriad of obstacles to voting, including problematic precinct rosters, long lines, poll workers unauthorized requests for identification, misuse of provisional ballots, and unnecessary hurdles to registration. In addition to 340,000 new registrants, more than 500,000 voters updated their registrations in Though voters appear to have fared better in 2008 than in 2004, structural barriers to voter registration and voting remain. These barriers limit the full and accessible enfranchisement of eligible voters, and are particularly acute among low-income communities and communities of color. To address these barriers in advance of the 2012 elections, the following reforms in Missouri s election administration and amendment of the election code should be undertaken and enacted: Correct Missouri s implementation of the matching process mandated by the Help America Vote Act pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat to ensure that this process does not prevent eligible voter applicants from becoming registered to vote.

2 Enact legislation amending Mo. Rev. Stat to establish effective early voting that includes sufficient voting times and locations. Establish no-excuse absentee voting by amending Mo. Rev. Stat to allow all registered voters to vote absentee regardless of reason. Enact legislation to ensure that voters have the option of voting a paper ballot, and clarify Mo. Rev. Stat to ensure that local election authorities supply enough paper ballots to serve anticipated voters. Amend Mo. Rev. Stat to reduce disenfranchisement of voters who cast provisional ballots by requiring the counting of ballots cast in the wrong polling place for all contests for which the voter is eligible. Establish a tax credit under Chapter 135 RSMo for citizens who serve as poll workers; permit split shifts for poll workers to allow poll workers to serve a half-day shift; establish minimum poll worker training standards statewide; and strengthen poll worker training related to voter identification. Enact legislation that bans voter caging and amend Mo. Rev. Stat to enhance penalties for voter intimidation. Amend Mo. Rev. Stat to clarify that the voting rights of persons with felony convictions are automatically restored upon completion of supervision by the Department of Corrections, require the Department of Probation and Parole to make voter registration applications available at state correctional institutions, and incorporate registration into probation and parole procedures for exiting offenders. RECOMMENDED REFORMS Remedy Missouri's Burdensome Voter Registration and Matching Process Voter registration issues were the most commonly reported problem during the 2008 general election. 1 Unfortunately, Missouri s decentralized registration system and burdensome matching criteria threaten eligible voters access to the franchise. Missouri s registration process is administered at the local level, 2 and, in essence, the state's centralized voter registration database is little more than a patchwork of local databases. Under the law, voter registration is not portable. A voter who moves from one election jurisdiction to another (typically from one county within the state to another) does not carry his or her Missouri voter registration and, instead, must update her registration in the new county before the registration deadline in order to be qualified to vote there in the next election. With the statewide, centralized voter registration database now fully operational, this rule serves little purpose; once registered, voters should be able to update their registration address at the polls, since local election officials all have access to the centralized database. Moreover, the process for validating voter registration applications in the statewide voter database in accordance with HAVA has the unintended effect of disenfranchising some eligible voters by inaccurately categorizing their voter applications as incomplete applications, which blocks them from the voter rolls and prevents them from getting notice of the election and their polling place. Federal law requires election authorities to endeavor to match information in voter registration applications against Social Security and motor vehicle databases but does not dictate the consequences of a discrepancy. 3 Enacted in response to the election problems exposed by the 2000 elections, HAVA 1 See Voters First: An Examination of Missouri s 2008 State and Federal Elections, Report from the Office of Secretary of State, Apr. 2009, at 7, see also Missouri OURVOTE Live: Registration Problems (173 out of 511 voting problems, 754 of 1638 inquiries), 2 See Mo. Rev. Stat (2009). 3 See 42 U.S.C

3 aims in part to establish uniformity in states administration of elections, including standards to improve the reliability of voter registration lists. States must attempt to match a voter applicant s driver s license or last four digits of the applicant s social security number against a record in the motor vehicle or Social Security databases. HAVA intended this matching process to help states to maintain their registration lists and track voters who move within a state. As required by HAVA, Missouri law establishes a matching process, Mo. Rev. Stat , but does not require or permit election officials to deny or delay a voter registration application due to a matching discrepancy. Unfortunately, the process used in Missouri has the effect of doing just that. When an applicant s data does not result in an exact match to the drivers license or Social Security database, which may be the result of a typographical error, missing middle initial, or hyphenated last name, the application defaults to a classification of incomplete, along with applications on which a required field is missing. This blocks the applicant from the poll list and, absent an election official s manual adjustment of the applicant s status to active, results in applicants receiving a notice threatening to reject the application if the voter does not take affirmative steps to follow up within a designated time frame. Because they are not on a list of registered voters, unmatched applicants do not receive notice of the election or their polling place. If they nonetheless appear at the polls, they will learn that their names are not on the poll list, and will typically have to cast a provisional ballot, which will presumably not be counted because they are not considered registered voters, even if they otherwise met the eligibility requirements. 4 Denying voter applicants who have timely fulfilled every requirement of Missouri s registration process access to the voter rolls violates Missouri election law, which requires registration of eligible applicants who have submitted timely voter registration applications. 5 Instead these applicants should be treated like mail-in registrants who did not submit a copy of their identification: provisionally registered and placed on the rolls with a flag that requires them to present identification at the polls. Unmatched voters should be notified that they need to verify their identification and may do so up to and including on Election Day. The secretary can go a long way to remedy this problem by exercising the administrative authority granted by Mo. Rev. Stat to allow the database to differentiate unmatched applications from incomplete applications and ensuring that those with complete applications are placed on precinct rosters. This modest reform of creating a designation in the database for unmatched applicants would help local election officials more accurately categorize such applicants and prevent their applications from being inaccurately classified as incomplete applications. Many other states have adopted this model. The majority of states now place unmatched applicants on the rolls with a requirement that they present identification at the polls to clear the discrepancy. 6 In Virginia, for example, unmatched 4 It is difficult to estimate the number of eligible Missouri voters disenfranchised by these practices. The number of registrations that county election officials have rejected is unknown, and even in counties that do not reject unmatched registrations, some voters who receive the letter may reasonably conclude they have been rejected and are deterred from voting. Moreover, it is difficult to determine how many of the extant pending-incomplete registrations in the Missouri Consolidated Voter Registration Database ( MCVR ) represent unmatched records. Further, not all unmatched voters are entered into the MCVR; some counties choose to maintain separate lists of unmatched applicants and enter them into the centralized database only when the record is matched to complete the registration. 5 See Mo. Rev. Stat (2009) (providing that absent exceptions for criminal status and incapacitation any citizen of the United States who is a resident of the state of Missouri and seventeen years and six months of age shall be entitled to register and to vote in any election which is held on or after his eighteenth birthday ). 6 Many states that adopted the strict matching procedures like Missouri s have since abandoned them. For example, California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania abandoned these registration systems after it was revealed that thousands of

4 registrants names appear on the poll books marked with an H for HAVA Voter, which alerts poll workers that these voters must show one of the forms of identification required by HAVA before they may be issued a ballot. The secretary should consider adopting that system. Missouri s matching practices that impede the registration and voting of eligible applicants are not supported by either state or federal law, which makes clear that matching is for purposes of data verification, not eligibility. 7 Missouri law does not authorize election officials to delay or deny registration to voter applicants based on a no match, and pursuant to the secretary s authority to manage the MCVR, the current failure to process unmatched voters could be remedied administratively. Nevertheless, to clarify Missouri law, lawmakers should amend Missouri s matching statute, Mo Rev. Stat (3) & (4), to state expressly that matching is not a prerequisite to voter registration and a failure to match should not delay or deny the processing of an otherwise valid registration application. Establish Early Voting and No-Excuse Absentee Voting Long lines are a perennial challenge in Missouri's larger election jurisdictions and were a particular problem in 2008, when voters in the St. Louis and Kansas City metro areas experienced some of the longest waits in the country, both on Election Day and during in-person absentee voting before Election Day. Precincts in North St. Louis County were particularly ill-equipped to handle the increased election day turnout, with 27 polling sites in which voters experienced more than two-tothree hour lines, and 13 with lines long enough to reach critical levels (in excess of four hours), such that, absent action in response to advocacy by Advancement Project would have been unable to process voters without prohibitively long delays. 8 By mid-afternoon, one St. Louis County poll site, Velda City Hall, was experiencing seven hour delays in voting, 9 among the longest nationwide. Numerous other polls were experiencing four-to-six hour vote times, 10 and many places were experiencing at least a two-hour vote time. On Election Day, demands to St. Louis County Election officials resulted in a directive to allow voters to vote by means other than a privacy booth and other measures to allow the lines to move more swiftly. Unfortunately, the long lines forced a number of voters to leave the polling place before casting a ballot due to childcare, work obligations, or physical fatigue. Missouri law currently provides for elections to be held on a single day. 11 Long lines and other logistical burdens on Election Day would be relieved if early voting were established in Missouri. The secretary of state has recommended that the legislature change Missouri law to allow for early voting to increase convenience for voters, lessen the burden on poll workers an reduce polling place lines on election day. 12 Long lines at the polls, increased absentee voting 13 and success of early voting in neighboring states have prompted interest in early voting. Several bills were introduced during the eligible voters were being kept from the rolls in those states. 7 Mo. Rev. Stat (2009). 8 See Voters First 2008, supra, at 19. At one St. Louis County polling place, voters waited up to seven hours to cast a ballot. 9 See Seven-hour waits reported in Missouri city, CNN, Nov. 4, 2008, 10 See Wait times reach 4 to 6 hours in St. Louis area, CNN, Nov. 4, 2008, 11 Mo. Rev. Stat (2009) ( All public elections shall be held on Tuesday. Except as provided... all public elections shall be held on the general election day, the primary election day, the general municipal election day, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February or November, or on another day expressly provided by city or county charter, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June and in non-primary years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in August. ). 12 See Voters First 2008, supra, at Id. at 13. In 2008, 421,970 absentee ballots were cast in Missouri.

5 2009 and 2010 legislative sessions to allow for early voting beginning three weeks before Election Day at election board headquarters and designated early voting sites determined by numbers of registered voters. 14 Unfortunately, these measures did not receive hearing in the legislature, which instead this year took up an alternate advance voting proposal, HB 1966, which would have established only limited dates, times, and locations for early voting. 15 In particular, the bill would have established advance voting for only four days prior to statewide elections, during primarily business hours, and only at one satellite location in most counties. This meager reform would not make voting easier for the working Missourians whom advance voting is intended to benefit. Nor would this limited form of early voting sufficiently reduce voting lines on Election Day. Instead, Missouri law should be amended, as proposed in HB 1470 and SB 651 in 2010, to allow voters to cast advance ballots at central voting locations and satellite sites up to three weeks before Election Day with the number of sites determined by numbers of registered voters. In addition to establishing early voting in Missouri, legislators should also expand opportunities to vote by absentee ballot. Lawmakers should amend Mo. Rev. Stat to provide for no-excuse absentee voting, as proposed this year in HB 1836, HB 1839 and HB Missouri law strictly limits the circumstances under which a voter may vote absentee. 17 Many voters who have difficulty voting on Election Day nevertheless do not qualify for absentee voting status. This results in poor administration of the absentee balloting process and contributes to long lines on Election Day. During the 2008 general election, long lines, mismanagement and overwhelmed staff mired the absentee voting process in St. Louis County and Kansas City. Some Kansas City residents waited upwards of six hours to vote absentee the day before the election. 18 Missouri s absentee voting laws are far too narrow and the Kansas City experience shows that they clearly don t account for those who would benefit from advance voting. Missouri s absentee ballot law should be expanded to permit voters to vote absentee without having to assert under oath one of the very limited circumstances under which a voter may vote by absentee ballot. Mo. Rev. Stat should be amended to allow all registered voters to vote absentee regardless of reason. Ensure Adequate Polling Place Resources Missouri law establishes the minimum number of ballots that election jurisdictions must provide. For example, in a general election, jurisdictions with large populations like St. Louis County are required to provide each polling place with at least 133% of the number of ballots cast at that polling place in 14 See HB 1470 (MO 2010) (Frame); SB 651 (MO 2010) (Days); HB 1547 (MO 2010) (Corcoran) (allowing for early voting beginning the third Wednesday before Election Day at board headquarters and established satellite voting sites). Similar legislation was introduced but not given a hearing in See HB 49 (MO 2009) (Frame); HB 59 (MO 2009) (Corcoran); SB 21 (MO 2009) (Days). 15 HB 1966 (MO 2010) (Diehl). 16 See, e.g., HB 1836 (MO 2010) (Zimmerman); HB 1839 (MO 2010) (Zimmerman); HB 2195 (MO 2010) (LeBlanc) (allowing any voter to vote by absentee without providing a reason). Similar legislation was introduced but not acted upon in See SB 95 (MO 2009) (Justus); HB 115 (MO 2009) (Wildberger). 17 Mo. Rev. Stat (2009). 18 See Long Wait for Absentee Voters in Kansas City, NBC News, Nov. 3, 2008 (describing confusion, mismanagement, and waits up to eight hours), Voters-in-Kansas-City/7FhNx76mcEmGo1mHlzyGUw.cspx.

6 the last comparable general election. 19 A statistical analysis of polling place resources in St. Louis County conducted in advance of the 2008 general election revealed that the County risked having an insufficient supply of ballots based on election officials misinterpretation of the statute. 20 Rather than print the requisite number of paper ballots dictated by statute, St. Louis County election officials deducted the number of votes they estimated would be cast electronically from the total number of paper ballots printed for each polling place. 21 In other words, they included the maximum potential votes cast electronically as part of the total number of paper ballots they allocated. In response to the analysis, St. Louis County officials agreed to allocate additional ballots at approximately 82 polling sites. Election authorities should not assume that all voters who may cast electronic votes will do so, or that electronic machines will always be fully functional. Because voters may vote either electronically or by paper ballot, election officials must provide enough ballots so that all voters at each polling place who opt to cast a paper ballot may do so. There has been no court ruling allowing potential electronic votes to be considered when determining the quantum of ballots to supply as required by Mo. Rev. Stat , and the clear purpose of the statute to ensure sufficient ballots for all voters suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, as recommended by the secretary of state, the Missouri Legislature should enact a law making it explicit that every voter has the option of voting on either a paper ballot or machine, and amend [Mo. Rev. Stat (3)] related to provision of ballots to ensure that all local election authorities produce enough paper ballots to serve all anticipated voters. 22 In addition, to ensure adequate polling place resources, local election authorities should increase the number of privacy booths and voting stations at poll sites. Missouri law does not set a minimum number of voting machines per registered voter, though state regulations require election authorities to provide a sufficient number of voting machines and voting devices. 23 While the number of machines considered sufficient depends on whether electronic voting machines are the principal system used to cast votes, the regulations do not set minimum requirements. Because most jurisdictions lack enough electronic machines to cover voter turnout in a general election, the vast majority of Missouri s 116 voting jurisdictions now rely on paper ballots as their primary voting method. 24 This means that election officials must allocate enough privacy booths and voting stations to accommodate anticipated turnout. In 2008, because St. Louis County election officials underestimated the time it would take voters to cast a ballot electronically and lacked enough privacy booths for voters casting paper ballots, numerous polling sites were strained by severely long lines. Accordingly, local election authorities should heed the Secretary of State s recommendation that the number of privacy booths and voting stations at each polling place should be increased to alleviate long lines. 25 Reduce Rejection of Provisional Ballots Cast by Eligible, Registered Voters 19 Mo. Rev. Stat (3) (2009). 20 Advancement Project, The End of the Line: Preparing for a Surge in Voter Turnout in the November 2008 General Election, Letter to St. Louis County re: Ballot Allocation, (Oct. 13, 2008); see also Group: St. Louis County could run out of paper ballots on Election Day, KMOV-TV CH 4 (CBS) St. Louis, Oct. 13, 2008, 21 Meeting of St. Louis County Election Board Directors and staff with Advancement Project, July 14, 2008; see also St. Louis County Election Board Matrix of Polling Place Resources (Sept. 2008) on file with Advancement Project. 22 Voters First 2008, supra, at Mo. Code Regs. Ann (5) (2009). 24 Voters First 2008, supra, at Id. at 25.

7 Under Missouri law, provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling place must be rejected. 26 But the law also requires that a voter shall be directed to the correct polling place or a central polling place before a poll worker issues the voter a provisional ballot. 27 Election Day incident reports show that misdirection from poll workers caused many voters to cast provisional ballots at the wrong polling place. In particular, during busy periods, poll workers frequently failed to direct the voters to their correct polling places and instead issued provisional ballots to voters who should have been directed elsewhere. Put differently, these voters were required to cast ballots in the wrong place due to no fault of their own. Their ballots should not have been rejected since they were not directed to the correct polling place. Disqualifying such ballots without showing that voters were directed to their correct polling places, but nevertheless insisted upon casting their ballot in the incorrect polling place, could violate voters statutory rights under HAVA to cast a meaningful provisional ballot and infringe their federal constitutional rights. 28 Missouri s provisional ballot statute, Mo. Rev. Stat , should be amended to remove the specific polling place requirement and require the counting of all provisional ballots cast by eligible, registered voters as to the contests in which the voter is eligible to vote. The Ohio House of Representatives for example, recently passed legislation allowing voters to cast provisional ballots anywhere in the county in which they are registered to vote. 29 Missouri should follow suit. Alternatively, at a minimum, legislators should amend the code, or the secretary should construe existing law, to require the counting of provisional ballots cast at an incorrect location if poll workers did not direct the voter to his or her correct location. Indeed, a federal court has already construed current law in that manner. In Hawkins v. Blunt, the court held that provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling place must be counted unless it is clear that the poll worker directed the voter to his or her correct polling place and the voter nevertheless refused to go. 30 In addition, it is clear that poll worker training as it relates to current law governing the administration of provisional ballots must be substantially improved. Too often, poll workers lack adequate training that provisional ballots must be cast in the correct polling place and used only as a last resort. At a poll worker training in Kansas City, for example, the trainer instructed poll workers to issue a provisional ballot anytime a voter s eligibility was unclear, despite that Missouri law requires poll workers to engage in a three-part process to attempt to verify a voter s eligibility. 31 The poll workers were given a piece of hard candy and told that provisional ballots are a life-saver to be given anytime something is wrong, when a voter s name does not appear on the roster or when a poll worker is unable to reach election board headquarters. They were also told that provisional ballots are a way to make voters happy and never instructed that such ballots are rejected if cast at the wrong polling place. A deputy director of the Kansas City Election Board explained that trainers refrain from instructing poll workers that provisional ballots cast in the wrong place will be rejected so as to avoid potential conflict between poll workers and voters on Election Day. 32 None of the poll worker training manuals in the state's four largest election jurisdictions explicitly explained to poll workers that the ballot would be rejected if cast in the wrong place. These should be revised to more clearly explain the rules. 26 Mo. Rev. Stat (1) (2009). 27 Id. 28 See Advancement Project Makes Plea to Approve Some Provisional Ballots in Missouri, Nov. 13, 2008, 29 See HB 260 (OH 2009), defining the jurisdiction within which a person may validly cast a provisional ballot as the county in which the person is registered to vote (R.C ). 30 Hawkins v. Blunt, No (W.D. Mo. Oct. 12, 2004), at Poll Worker Training Session, Kansas City, July 22, Meeting between Advancement Project and Kansas City election directors, July 22, 2008.

8 Absent a repeal of the rule disqualifying provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling place, the secretary of state should issue guidance to local election authorities explaining that they should not disqualify provisional ballots cast at the wrong polling place unless the record shows that election officials fulfilled their statutory duty to direct those voters to their assigned polling places, and ensure that local election authorities are properly training poll workers on the issuance of provisional ballots. Establish Incentives for Enhanced Poll Worker Recruitment and Training Poll workers are the backbone of the election administration process, and poll worker recruitment and training are central functions of election officials. Poll workers are responsible for setting up and maintaining voting sites and machines; managing voters and polling places; determining whether voters are eligible to vote and where; ensuring that eligible voters are able to vote; and guaranteeing the safe and secure collection, storage, and delivery of ballots and for being vigilant in each of these responsibilities throughout a workday that can last as long as 15 hours. 33 Unfortunately, poll workers are also often the weakest link in the election system: there is a shortage of poll workers 34 more than 20,000 poll workers are needed to run a statewide election in Missouri and states rarely provide the level of training necessary to prepare poll workers for their various responsibilities. 35 In Missouri, local election authorities are responsible for appointing and training poll workers, 36 who receive approximately $100 for their service. 37 Despite the Secretary of State s successful poll worker recruitment initiative which has identified more than 5,000 poll workers since 2006, local officials continue to struggle with poll worker recruitment and training. Surveys of Missouri poll workers over recent election cycles reflect concerns of understaffed polling sites causing the secretary of state to conclude that stress due to being understaffed and overworked appeared to take its toll on poll workers. 38 The Missouri legislature should enact a law, similar to HB 2149 introduced in the 2010 session, to establish a tax credit as an added incentive for citizens to serve as poll workers. 39 Further, election authorities should consider offering split shifts for poll workers so that citizens may serve for a half day, rather than the full 14-to-16 hour days now required. Additionally, the legislature should pass a law, or alternatively the secretary of state should promulgate regulations, to establish minimum statewide poll worker training standards. For example, North Carolina law requires poll worker training prior to each election. 40 In 2008, the Missouri secretary of state provided over $772,000 in grants to local election officials for poll worker training, which helped place more specialist workers and trouble shooters at the polls. 41 The secretary should continue to enhance uniform statewide poll 33 Advancement Project Issue Brief: Achieving Democracy and Avoiding Legal Challenges and Legal Liability: Effective Poll Worker Training, Sept. 2008, on file with Advancement Project. 34 Richard Wolf, 2 Million Poll Workers Wanted for November Elections, USA Today, June 8, 2008, 35 See, e.g., Voting in 2008: Ten Swing States (Common Cause & the Century Foundation), Sept. 15, 2008, at 24-27, see also Advancement Project Issue Brief: Poll Worker Training: Is Your State Complying with the Law?, Sept. 2009, 36 Mo. Rev. Stat (2009). 37 High schoolers fill the gap on Election Day, Kansas City Star, Aug. 11, 2008, at B9. 38 Voters First: An Examination of the 2006 Midterm Election in Missouri: Report from the Office of the Secretary of State, at 12, 39 See e.g., HB 2149 (MO 2010) (Colona) and SB 74 (MO 2009) (Wilson) (creating a $50 income tax credit for poll workers). 40 See N.C. Gen. Stat , requiring the board of elections to conduct an instructional meeting prior to each primary and general election for election judges. 41 Voters First 2008, supra, at 15.

9 worker training materials and distribute grants to local election authorities to provide for additional poll workers. 42 Strengthen Training and Reduce Confusion Related to Voter Identification Missouri law requires voters to show identification to establish their identity on Election Day and allows voters to satisfy this requirement with a broad range of identifications. 43 Due to amendment of the voter ID law in 2006, 44 subsequent injunction of that law by the Missouri Supreme Court, 45 and repeated legislative efforts to reinstate a photo ID requirement, poll workers appear to be confused by and consequently misadminister the voter ID requirements. Election Day reports and findings of the secretary of state attest to the degree of confusion that poll workers and voters have about Missouri s voter ID requirement, with the secretary of state identifying voter ID issues as the most common type of voter misinformation reported during the 2008 elections. 46 Since 2006, Missouri lawmakers have attempted in each legislative session to advance an amendment to the state constitution that would require voters to present photo ID at the polls, on grounds that it is necessary to prevent fraud, even though there has never been a single reported case of voter impersonation fraud in the state. After an unsuccessful legislative effort to add restrictive ID provisions to the state constitution in 2007, 2008, and 2009, legislators in 2010 again pursued a constitutional ballot measure to allow for strict voter ID requirements. The measure, HJR 64, and its enabling legislation, HB 1966, was the legislature s fourth attempt to implement photo identification requirements on Missouri voters since the state Supreme Court found such requirements amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax, concluding that they posed a a heavy and substantial burden on Missourians free exercise of the right of suffrage. Current law, which already requires everyone to present ID when voting, is already more restrictive than corresponding laws in about half the states, which only require identification from first-time voters who do not present ID upon registering. The ID proposals, however, would have restricted the broad list of acceptable forms of ID to only non-expired photo IDs issued by the state of Missouri or the federal government making Missouri s photo ID law among the most restrictive in the country. Among currently acceptable forms of identification, the bills would have prohibited the use of Missouri college IDs; out-of-state driver s licenses; current utility bills, bank statements, government checks or paychecks, and other government documents containing the voter s name and address. Studies by the Secretary of State and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimate that approximately 230,000 Missouri voters lack the ID required by the proposed constitutional change, including more than 90,000 rural residents; 70,000 low-income residents; 50,000 residents without a high school diploma; 50,000 elderly residents; and 40,000 African Americans. 47 The measures, which each year passed the House of Representatives and were awaiting vote in Senate in the final days of the sessions, were derailed by voter advocates in 2008, , 49 and , but 42 Id. at Mo. Rev. Stat (2009). 44 SB 1014 (MO 2006) (Scott). 45 Weinschenck v. State, 203 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. 2006). 46 Voters First 2008, supra, at Missouri s Proposed Voting Requirement Could Disenfranchise More Than 200,000 U.S. Citizens, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 15, 2008, Carnahan Identifies Nearly 230,000 Voters that Risk Being Disenfranchised by Legislation, Apr. 28, 2009, 48 HJR 48 (Cox) (MO 2008); see Missouri Legislature Ends Session With Voter ID Amendment Still on Agenda, N.Y. Times, May 17, 2008; Missouri legislative session ends in a mad dash, Kansas City Star, May 17, 2008, at A1; Missouri Voter ID law doesn t make it to Missouri Senate Floor, The Daily Kos, May 16, 2008; Proposed Photo ID Legislation Failed - Constitutional Change to Restrict Voting Rights Faced Groundswell of Opposition from Across the State,

10 are anticipated to be re-introduced in Given the burden that a photo ID requirement would impose on eligible voters, and the lack of any legitimate justification for imposing such a burden, legislators should refrain from enacting a resolution to amend the state constitution to require photo ID. Instead, in advance of the 2012 general election, legislators should improve and modernize the Missouri code to protect voting rights, as suggested in this issue brief. In addition, state and local election officials should improve the administration of Missouri s current voter ID law by supplementing poll worker training to highlight the forms of acceptable ID and by prominently posting notices listing acceptable ID at each polling place. Ban Voter Caging and Enhance Penalties for Voter Intimidation While voter intimidation and challenges of Missouri s voters were not widespread in 2008, 51 voter caging and challenges were threatened in several states, including Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The political volatility of the country, widespread anti-immigrant sentiment, and impassioned opposition to President s Obama s administration may prompt desperate measures to suppress minority voters and spur voter caging and challenges to voters registration. Legislators should follow the recommendation of the secretary of state that penalties for those engaging in voter intimidation or misinformation be increased. 52 Several bills introduced in the 2009 legislative session would have banned voter caging 53 by limiting the activities of challengers and prohibiting misinformation to voters, 54 thereby reducing voter intimidation. These proposals were stalled in committee and did not reach a floor vote but should be enacted in advance of the 2012 general election. Ensure Automatic Re-enfranchisement of Persons with Felony Convictions Under Missouri law, voters who are convicted of felonies are temporarily disqualified from voting while under supervision of the Department of Corrections. Mo. Rev. Stat provides that disqualification from voting due to a felony conviction terminates upon the voter s release from 49 HJR 9 (Cox) (MO 2009); see Editorial, Partisans who mess with voters rights are playing with fire, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Apr. 9, 2009, Denise Lieberman & Bob Quinn, Tying voter ID to early voting is an underhanded move to suppress voters, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Apr. 16, 2009, 6?OpenDocument; Photo finished? Time s running out for House resolution supporting photo voter ID, St. Louis Beacon, Apr. 21, 2009, _voter_id; Early voting, voter ID proposal may be too big to pass, KY3 News Springfield, Apr. 23, 2009, 50 HJR 64 (Cox) (MO 2010); see Voter ID/early voting bill apparently dead in Mo. Senate, PrimeBuzz, Kansas City Star, May 12, 2010, Photo I.D. legislation likely dead, KWMU St. Louis, May 13, 2010, egis. 51 See Fake messages target Obama backers, CNN, Nov. 4, 2008, (fake text and messages sent to voters in Florida, Virginia, Missouri, and several other states urging them to vote on Wed., Nov. 5, due to long lines on the actual Nov. 4 Election Day). 52 Voters First 2008, supra, at See HB 192 (MO 2009) (Hughes) (Voter Caging Prohibition Act of 2009). 54 See SB 106 (MO 2009) (Justus) (barring the dissemination of deceptive information to voters that would encourage voters to vote improperly).

11 incarceration and discharge from probation or parole. Consequently, persons with felony convictions should have their voting rights reinstated automatically upon their completion of supervision by the Department of Corrections. 55 Nevertheless, the statute does not expressly state that reinstatement is automatic, and election officials do not always properly implement the provision to that effect. For example, in 2008, the St. Louis Board of Elections required persons with felony convictions to present, in person, documents from their parole officers as a prerequisite to reinstatement of their voting rights, rather than automatically registering those no longer on the list of disqualified voters provided by the Department of Corrections. This practice resulted in wrongfully disenfranchising eligible voters who had been off probation for a long time or who otherwise did not have paperwork or specially appear at board headquarters. On the eve of the 2008 general elections, in response to advocacy from voting rights groups, the St. Louis Board of Elections reinstated voters wrongfully denied access to the voting rolls pursuant to this practice. 56 Mo. Rev. Stat should be clarified to state expressly that reinstatement of persons with felony convictions who have been released from incarceration and discharged from probation or parole to the voting rolls is automatic. In addition, voter registration should be part of normal exit procedures within the Department of Corrections. Missouri lawmakers should pass legislation, similar to the Voter Registration for Released Prisoners Act introduced this year in Pennsylvania, 57 requiring the Department of Probation and Parole to make voter registration applications available at state correctional institutions and incorporate registration information into exit procedures when inmates are discharged. Establish Specific Standards for Disability Accessibility Missouri law provides that voters with disabilities be allowed to vote curbside and to receive assistance in voting. 58 Despite valuable educational materials produced by the Secretary of State and advocacy groups, confusion about the rights of voters with disabilities is widespread among voters and poll workers alike. Election Day incident reports from the 2008 general election show wide disparity in implementation of accessibility options by county, with many voters with disabilities forced to wait extremely long periods of time until lines inside the polls dissipated and poll workers appeared to conduct curbside voting. In some places, poll workers required that an able-bodied person stand in line for the person with a disability, and only conducted curbside voting when the surrogate reached the front of the line. Some poll workers were unaware of state law that permits voters to bring an assistant into the polls. Mo. Rev. Stat should be amended to establish procedures for curbside voting, clarify that a voter may use an assistant of his or her choice, and mandate poll worker training related to access to voting for persons with disabilities. CONCLUSION Missouri is well positioned to improve its election administration because of the commitment of state and local election officials, but legislators need to heed the call to improve the state's election code to ensure that election officials have the tools they need to administer elections effectively. Long lines, 55 Mo. Rev. Stat (2009) (... No person shall be entitled to vote:... (2) while on probation or parole after conviction of a felony, until finally discharged from such probation or parole. ). 56 See Letter to St. Louis Election Board re: Registration of Persons with Felony Convictions, Oct. 13, 2008 (on file with Advancement Project), 57 See HB 1072, 2010 Pa. Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (as reported and amended by Appropriations Comm. May 24, 2010)(Printer s No. 3779). 58 Mo. Rev. Stat , (3) (2009).

12 registration failures, wrongful requests for identification, provisional ballot mishaps, and other barriers to voting revealed in recent elections demonstrate that legislators and administrators alike must reform the state s burdensome, decentralized voter registration system and modernize the election code to ensure that all eligible voters are able to cast a ballot and have their vote counted. Election administration in 2010 may be further compromised by severe budgetary constraints that create pressure to consolidate polling locations and under allocate polling place resources. In the 2011 session, legislators should revise the code to clarify registration matching requirements and render the database more transparent, ensure adequate polling resources, implement effective advance and absentee voting policies, reduce rejection of provisional ballots, improve poll worker recruitment and training, and ensure that all eligible voters are able to cast a ballot. In addition, short of amending the code, the secretary of state and local election authorities should modify administration of the code as described in this briefing paper to ensure that all eligible voters are able to cast a ballot and have it counted. These recommended legislative and administrative reforms, if adopted, will increase the ability of eligible Missourians to participate in the 2012 general election.