Update: Voters passed the voter ID constitutional amendment.
Whether you’re early voting or going to your local polling place on April 1, voters will see a proposed constitutional amendment asking whether to add a voter ID requirement to the Wisconsin Constitution. If a majority of voters approve the amendment this spring, it will be added to the state constitution.
Wisconsin already has a law, in place since 2016, which requires voters to show photo identification at the polls or to vote absentee. The referendum on the April 1 ballot isn't asking whether to get rid of or keep that law. It'll remain in place regardless of the referendum results.
Instead, the question is whether Wisconsin should enshrine the voter ID law in the state constitution. That would make it harder for a court to strike down the law or for lawmakers to repeal it in the future.
Here's the question that will appear on your ballot:
Photographic identification for voting. Shall section 1m of article III of the constitution be created to require that voters present valid photographic identification verifying their identity in order to vote in any election, subject to exceptions which may be established by law?
Voting "yes" means you support adding an amendment to Wisconsin’s constitution that says voters must show a valid photo ID to participate in elections.
Voting "no" means you oppose such an amendment.
Supporters hope the amendment will protect voter ID requirements from potential legal challenges brought to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which currently has a liberal-leaning majority. The amendment was added to the ballot by Republican lawmakers who control the state Legislature.
Critics say voter ID mandates make it harder for people to vote. They say they’re more likely to disenfranchise groups of people who are less likely to have a valid photo ID — including seniors, students, rural residents, low-income people, people of color and people with disabilities, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
The proposed constitutional language itself doesn’t specify what types of IDs would be allowed, but says those rules are to be set by the state Legislature. Currently, acceptable forms of photo ID in Wisconsin include:
- Wisconsin driver’s license
- Wisconsin non-driver ID
- Military ID card or an ID card from the Veteran’s Health Administration
- U.S. passport or a certificate of naturalization issued no more than two years before the election
- ID card from a federally recognized Indian tribe in Wisconsin
- Student ID card with a signature, an issue date and an expiration date no later than two years after the election
To bring this measure to the ballot, both chambers of Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Legislature had to vote to approve the language in two separate, consecutive legislative sessions. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has no control over that process and was not able to veto the measure.
To help explain this referendum and some of the arguments for and against it, Paul Nolette from Marquette University’s Les Aspin Center for Government joined Lake Effect.
His responses below have been edited for length and clarity.
What would a “yes” or “no” vote on this referendum mean? And what would it change?
A "yes" vote would entrench voter ID requirements in the state constitution. A "no" vote would keep it out of the constitution.
For voters around the state, it wouldn't really change anything from their perspective because, right now, voter ID is the law, by statute, in Wisconsin. So for this election, for any election, voters need to have a voter ID.
However, a "yes" vote, if this becomes part of the constitution, it would make it harder to challenge that statute — any voter ID statute — because it would now be a matter of state constitutional law, not just state statutory law.
Can you share the process of how our state’s constitution can be changed?
So, in order for a new constitutional amendment to be created, the state Legislature needs to pass that amendment in two consecutive sessions — and this is a feature that a few other states have around the country as well — which makes it a little bit harder to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
We've already had that process go through with the Legislature, which is why we're now at the spot where the voters have a say on this constitutional amendment.
Referendums can be confusing, especially in their wording, but I think the main point of confusion for this one is that it’s already state law that Wisconsinites must present an acceptable form of photo ID to vote. Is it unclear to voters that this law is already in place?
No, I think voters are aware, because in the very act of voting, they'll be asking for voter ID. It has been several years now that Wisconsin has had voter ID, and that is not going to change either way — regardless of how this vote comes out.
But that "yes" vote would put this into the constitution, which just makes it more difficult to ever legally challenge or to reverse the voter ID policy. In particular, Republican legislators in the Assembly and Senate looked to do this in order to really entrench voter ID policy in the state.
Would you say it's perhaps unnecessary? According to supporters of the referendum, what are the merits or benefits of trying to make it a constitutional provision?
I think, for proponents of voter ID, it's a good guarantee that this would be locked in. So that way, if — let's say — a liberal-leaning state Supreme Court heard challenges to the voter ID statute or a future Democratic Legislature reverses the policy, that would be a lot harder to do if this was put into the state constitution. So, it's really kind of making voter ID even more solid within the state.
Who opposes this proposal and why?
So, a lot of Democrats are opposing this, as well as groups such as the ACLU and some other civil rights groups. The concern that they're bringing up is that this can essentially have the effect of suppressing voters — making it a lot more difficult for certain types of voters to get to the polls because they don't have a voter ID.
Oftentimes, this can be students who don't have a driver's license, elderly individuals who also don't have a driver's license and also disabled people, who might not be able to drive — so they don't have a driver's license — or get the required IDs that they would need in order to vote.
By far, the most common way for voters to show their voter ID is their driver's license, but they can also show a U.S. passport. And there's a few others like military members and, in the constitutional amendment, there's a provision for colleges and universities to also have potential voter ID.
So, there are a few other avenues to get that, but there are classes of citizens within Wisconsin for whom a voter ID is difficult to obtain.
Where does Wisconsin stand in the country regarding mandating voter ID? Are we considered strict?
Yes, Wisconsin is one of the stricter states, along with about eight or nine others that require voter ID.
In Wisconsin, if you don't have a valid voter ID, you can get a provisional ballot — where, some time after you vote, you have to show valid voter ID, or else that vote is not counted. That's one of the ways that, when you look around the country at the different voter ID laws, that's considered a strict law.
Some states allow you to get a provisional ballot, but then you don't have to show voter ID later or you can bring in a utility bill that has your address on it, but not a photo, to prove that you live at that address. But Wisconsin is one of the most strict states in the country when it comes to voter ID.
So given our place as being a strict state, do you think this amendment is really necessary?
I think, from the proponents' point of view, this is necessary in order to lock this policy in — because they're worried about the voter ID statute being struck down or limited in the future by a liberal-leaning state Supreme Court or a potential Democratic majority in the state Senate.
Of course, the opponents are going to argue: "We think this is a bad policy to begin with, and locking that into the state constitution will not be good for Wisconsin voters."
Wisconsin’s voter ID law was signed by then Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2011, but had some legal challenges and didn’t go into effect until 2016. Given that, is there a wide concern that voter ID needs to be put into the constitution to avoid any future court challenges?
At both the state and the federal level, challenges to voter ID laws have been on free speech and civil rights grounds, as is the case in Wisconsin. On the federal level, the Supreme Court has made clear in a previous ruling that voter ID is acceptable — that states can, in fact, go their own way in whether or not they pass voter ID laws. So, it's acceptable under the U.S. Constitution, but not mandatory.
On the state level, those challenges had been largely turned aside by a more conservative Supreme Court. Ever since the more liberal justices got a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin state Supreme Court, however, there's a question about whether they might revisit some of those earlier decisions from the Scott Walker era.
And if they did, they could reverse themselves and then say, "Well, we think that, under the state constitution, voter ID is unconstitutional." They have the authority to do that, and in fact — if it's based on the state constitution — then it's very likely not reviewable by a federal court. So, I think that's why the proponents of voter ID are concerned that that would likely happen, perhaps if there's still a liberal majority after this vote.
To be clear, if the referendum fails, our current voter ID law does not simply go away, correct?
Correct. That strict voter ID law will still be in place whether "yes" or "no" wins on this constitutional referendum.
Have there been past patterns with voters saying “yes” or “no” to proposed constitutional amendments? Are we a state that has a lot of amendments on our local ballots compared to other places?
It's not super common, at least compared to, say, California, which is famous, or infamous, for having lots and lots of ballot measures.
But it does happen, and Wisconsin voters have been overall pretty willing to vote "yes" on constitutional amendments. I think it's right about between two-thirds and three-quarters of referenda that succeed in Wisconsin.
Once a constitutional amendment gets to the ballot, then voters have been pretty willing to ratify what the Legislature had done.
And how likely do you think it is that this measure will pass or fail?
I think based on both the history of amendments in front of voters, and also just based on polling data that indicates that Wisconsinites — much like Americans in other states — tend to favor voter ID laws, and that's been the case here. So, I would not be surprised at all with a "yes" vote, ultimately.
Given that people will need to present valid ID in order to vote on this referendum, what are acceptable forms of ID we can use at our local polling place?
Well, the most common forms of ID are a valid driver's license, and I should mention too that that needs to have your photo. It does not have to have your current address on it, although you need to verify with the official that you live at your current address, but it doesn't need to be reflected on your ID.
Other acceptable voter identification include U.S. passports, a military photo ID, or a student ID. For students, they'll want to check to ensure with their university about whether they can use their voter ID to vote.
If you don't have a passport, student ID, military or driver's license, you can get a special ID from the state that's meant for voting purposes and has your photo. And another one in that list is an ID card from a federally recognized Indian tribe in Wisconsin.
_
