Missouri court permanently blocks key part of voter photo ID

Litigation Regulations

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday permanently blocked a central portion of a 2016 voter identification law that it said had required a “misleading” and “contradictory” sworn statement from people lacking a photo ID.

The 5-2 ruling upholds a decision by a lower court judge, who had blocked the affidavit requirement from being used in the 2018 general election. It had remained on hold since then.

Missouri is one of several states where Republican-led legislatures have passed voter photo ID laws touted as a means of preventing election fraud. In Missouri’s case, the state law was accompanied by a constitutional amendment, approved by 63% of voters in November 2016, that authorized the implementation of a photo ID law.

Voter photo ID laws have been opposed by Democrats, who contend they can disenfranchise poor, elderly, disabled and minority voters who are less likely to have photo IDs.

Missouri’s law allowed voters lacking a valid government-issued photo identification to cast a regular ballot if they presented another form of ID — such as utility bill, bank statement or paycheck containing their name and address — and signed a sworn statement affirming their identity. The sworn statement also included a section acknowledging that they didn’t have “a form of personal identification approved for voting” but were aware they could get a free ID card from the state.

The law said voters lacking a photo ID also could cast a provisional ballot, which would count if they later returned with a photo ID or their signatures matched the ones on file with election authorities.

The Supreme Court said the sworn statement was inaccurate because it required people to say they didn’t possess a valid form of identification for voting while simultaneously requiring them to show a non-photo identification that would allow them to vote.

“Although the State has an interest in combating voter fraud, requiring individuals ... to sign a contradictory, misleading affidavit is not a reasonable means to accomplish that goal,” Judge Mary Russell wrote in the majority opinion.

The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court’s decision to block the secretary of state’s office from disseminating any materials indicating that a photo ID is required to vote.

Related listings

  • Democratic states appeal Obamacare ruling to Supreme Court

    Democratic states appeal Obamacare ruling to Supreme Court

    Litigation Regulations 01/05/2020

    In a move that could put the Obama-era health law squarely in the middle of the 2020 election, Democratic-led states Friday asked the Supreme Court for a fast-track review of a recent appeals court decision declaring a key part of the law unconstitut...

  • Court: Washington drivers must use turn signals to turn

    Court: Washington drivers must use turn signals to turn

    Litigation Regulations 12/29/2019

    The state Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that drivers must use their signal every time they turn or change lanes on a roadway.Thursday’s ruling reverses a Court of Appeals ruling that said a signal is required only when public safety is af...

  • Protests of Indian law grow despite efforts to contain them

    Protests of Indian law grow despite efforts to contain them

    Litigation Regulations 12/18/2019

    From campuses along India’s Himalayan northern border to its southern Malabar Coast, a student-led protest movement against a new law that grants citizenship on the basis of religion spread nationwide on Wednesday despite efforts by the governm...

Does a car or truck accident count as a work injury?

If an employee is injured in a car crash while on the job, they are eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits. “On the job” injuries are not limited to accidents and injuries that happen inside the workplace, they may also include injuries suffered away from an employee’s place of work while performing a job-related task, such as making a delivery or traveling to a client meeting.

Regular commutes to and from work don’t usually count. If you get into an accident on your way in on a regular workday, it’s probably not considered a work injury for the purposes of workers’ compensation.

If you drive around as part of your job, an injury on the road or loading/unloading accident is likely a work injury. If you don’t typically drive around for work but are required to drive for the benefit of your employer, that would be a work injury in many cases. If you are out of town for work, pretty much any driving would count as work related. For traveling employees, any accidents or injuries that happen on a work trip, even while not technically working, can be considered a work injury. The reason is because you wouldn’t be in that town in the first place, had you not been on a work trip.

Workers’ compensation claims for truck drivers, traveling employees and work-related injuries that occur away from the job site can be challenging and complex. At Krol, Bongiorno & Given, we understand that many families depend on the income of an injured worker, and we are proud of our record protecting the injured and disabled. We have handled well over 30,000 claims for injured workers throughout the state of Illinois.