Ashcroft seeks end to lawsuit challenging voter ID requirement

After he certified the results of the Aug. 8 special elections around the state last Tuesday, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft asked the Cole County Circuit Court to dismiss a lawsuit challenging Missouri's new Voter ID law.

The original, 49-page suit was filed June 8 by the NAACP's Missouri State Conference and by the League of Women Voters.

It was amended June 30 in a 15-page motion.

"Plaintiffs challenge Missouri's Voter identification statute in three counts, all of which fail," attorneys Frank A. Jung and Khristine Heisinger argued in a motion filed Tuesday. "This court should grant this motion and enter an order dismissing Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition, and award Defendant Secretary of State attorney's fees incurred in the defense of this case."

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters.

They originally asked Judge Jon Beetem to block implementation of the new law, which went into effect June 1 after voters last November approved a constitutional amendment allowing the Legislature to require voters "to verify one's identity, citizenship, and residence by presenting identification that may include valid government-issued photo identification."

The original lawsuit wanted to prevent the law's use during the Aug. 8 elections, and during a special election in July in St. Louis City.

But Beetem denied the requested restraining order, allowing the law to go into effect as the case continued. Beetem and the attorneys are scheduled for a conference call on Sept. 12, to determine the next steps in the case.

The Voter ID law cleared the General Assembly in 2016, but couldn't go into effect unless voters approved the proposed amendment.

The law mandates certain kinds of identification showing the voter's picture, in order for a voter to vote at a polling place.

The lawsuit reminded the court the required identification documents include a "nonexpired" Missouri driver's license or a "nondriver's" license or "any identification containing a photograph of the individual which is issued by the Missouri National Guard, the United States armed forces or the United States Department of Veterans Affairs."

In announcing the official results of the Aug. 8 elections, Ashcroft said in a news release: "Clearly, Missouri's photo voter ID law works. Every registered voter can vote."

But Tony Rothert, the ACLU-Missouri's legal director, said: "Results from a few, low-turnout elections this summer does not mean that the state has done its job of adequately educating voters on the new law, or provided the means for people to get their new IDs."

Both versions of the lawsuit argued the Voter ID law required Ashcroft's office and the state Revenue Department to take specific steps to make sure voters knew about the new ID requirements and how to fulfill them, but the Legislature failed appropriate sufficient state funds to pay for implementation of the new law.

"Count I should be dismissed by this court as plaintiffs have failed to allege actual costs of implementation," Ashcroft argued in last week's motion for dismissal.

"Alternatively, Count I should be dismissed as prematurely filed because this court cannot determine, in this first quarter of (Fiscal Year) 2018, whether there are or will be appropriations for FY2018 in a sufficient amount to reimburse actual costs of implementation of Voter ID."

The lawsuit noted Ashcroft had asked the Legislature for nearly $4.3 million for the public notice required by the new law.

But, Ashcroft countered, the plaintiffs "confuse costs with appropriations requests" made during the budget-writing process.

"Plaintiffs fail to allege that even one dollar has been spent on Voter ID implementation," Ashcroft's motion to dismiss said. "Without alleging costs, the claim that there has been an insufficient appropriation to reimburse costs must fail.

"Until plaintiffs show costs exceed appropriations, plaintiffs have no grounds for relief."

The new law also requires the local health departments, recorders of deeds, and circuit clerks to provide free copies of records such as birth, death or divorce documents, the NAACP and League of Women Voters noted in their suit.

But, they argued, the Missouri Constitution's "Hancock Amendment" prohibits the state from "requiring any new or expanded activities by counties and other political subdivisions without full state funding."

Ashcroft's attorneys said the plaintiffs failed to prove the Voter ID law's requirements are "new" duties imposed on those agencies.

"Local election authorities have been responsible for conducting elections since before the Hancock amendment was adopted," Jung and Heisinger wrote. "These previously existing and ongoing requirements that LEAs conduct elections defeat plaintiffs' claim that new activities are being imposed on LEAs by Voter ID.

"To the contrary, Voter ID blends seamlessly into the requirements that have been in statutes for years that LEAs 8 conduct elections."

In addition, Ashcroft said, the NAACP and League of Women Voters only are speculating when their lawsuit alleged local election costs would go up because of the new law.

Since the lawsuit named only the state and the secretary of state, but not any local election authority, Ashcroft said "This court cannot grant any injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of Voter ID (because) it is the LEAs that enforce the requirements of Voter ID."

The ACLU has not filed its formal response to Ashcroft's motion.

But, Rothert told the News Tribune: "The real threat to electoral integrity is that too many eligible voters don't vote, not that ineligible people are casting votes when they shouldn't."