Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Missouri's voter ID law challenged as unfair, defended as badly written

Missouri voters

Voters in Missouri who do not have a photo ID may show another forum of identification, such as a utility bill, as long as they sign an affidavit.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Is a central piece of the Missouri voter identification law in line with the state's constitution? The Missouri Supreme Court is on course to deciding.

The provision at issue permits those who arrive at the polls without a photo ID to substitute another form of identification, like a utility bill, and then sign an affidavit saying they are who they purport to be — under penalty of perjury.

The justices heard arguments last week on a challenge brought by Priorities USA, a Democratic-aligned voting rights group, which says the language on the affidavit is so vague and confusing that it results in a form of unconstitutional voter suppression. A lower court agreed.


The affidavit reads, "'I do not possess a form of personal identification approved for voting.' Well, what [does] possess mean in that sentence?" Marc Elias, representing Priorities USA, asked at the oral arguments, according to St. Louis Public Radio. "Does that mean I have an ID, but I forgot it at home? At which point, I possess the ID and I can't sign the affidavit, or does it mean I don't have an ID at all?"

The state says the affidavit has not had any effect on turnout but might have been written better.

"There is no individual voter who, while they were at the polls, read the affidavit and said, 'I can't sign this, I find it too confusing. I find it too contradictory,'" argued John Sauer of the Missouri Attorney General's Office, who nonetheless offered to redraft the language to make it more straightforward.

Read More

Entrance Sign at the University of Florida

Universities are embracing “institutional neutrality,” but at places like the University of Florida it’s becoming a tool to silence faculty and erode academic freedom.

Getty Images, Bryan Pollard

When Insisting on “Neutrality” Becomes a Gag Order

Universities across the country are adopting policies under the banner of “institutional neutrality,” which, at face value, sounds entirely reasonable. A university’s official voice should remain measured, cautious, and focused on its core mission regardless of which elected officials are in office. But two very different interpretations of institutional neutrality are emerging.

At places like the University of Wisconsin – Madison and Harvard, neutrality is applied narrowly and traditionally: the institution itself refrains from partisan political statements, while faculty leaders and scholars remain free to speak in their professional and civic capacities. Elsewhere, the same term is being applied far more aggressively — not to restrain institutions, but to silence individuals.

Keep ReadingShow less