Info you need for the voter ID constitutional amendment ballot question—and why you should vote "NO"

By Margo Kirchner
 
The April 1 ballot presents voters with yet another bad proposed constitutional amendment. Here’s what to know about it and why you should vote “no.”
 
First, here’s a quick summary of general guidelines for ballot questions on proposed constitutional amendments. For a more in-depth discussion of these general guidelines, see this blog post from last year.

• Be prepared. Don’t just read the question; take the time in advance to read the actual amendment behind the question. Read discussions like this one about the amendment as well, as the question itself can be vague or confusing. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has said the Legislature does not have to explain the amendment and the question can be misleading or omit important points as long as it’s not completely false.
• Know that the ballot question is framed and worded for a “yes.” The question will make you want to say “yes.”
• The Legislature has passed this provision already and wants you to pass it as well. What do you think about the Legislature? Do you generally agree or disagree with what it does?
• Question why this is on the ballot. Is there really a problem that needs long-term fixing, or is there some other reason? Is this an attempt to bypass the governor when different parties control the legislative and executive branches and don’t agree on policies? Is this an effort to cement something into law in case control of the Legislature changes? Is this an effort by the Legislature to draw voters to the polls for certain elections?
• Question whether the state constitution should be filled with provisions that belong in statutes rather than in our overriding, foundational legal document. Constitutional amendments are often passed by the Legislature without much study or consideration of the long-term impacts. They are much harder than statutes to undo or amend if they later create problems.

 
Now, on to this particular ballot question and proposed amendment. The question reads:

“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?”
 
The actual amendment limits the types of acceptable photo identification to those that are issued by:

• Wisconsin
• The federal government
• A federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state
• A college or university in this state.

Noticeably absent from the list are IDs from out-of-state colleges, universities, and tribes. Also excluded are out-of-state licenses of new Wisconsin residents who may not have made it to the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles yet. Most employer IDs are excluded (unless the employer is the state or federal government), as are municipal IDs.
 
The amendment adds that the Legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification and exceptions to the requirement under the constitutional provision. It also includes a provision that a qualified elector unable to present valid photographic identification on election day must be permitted to cast a provisional ballot that can be counted if the elector presents a valid photographic ID within the time and at the place set by the Legislature. 
 
Note that the ID must be valid and photographic, whether presented at the time of voting or later to cure a provisional ballot. No expired licenses would be constitutionally acceptable. No social security cards or nonphotographic IDs would be constitutionally acceptable.
 
This proposed amendment passed along party lines in at the start of the current legislative session. All 54 Republican Assembly representatives voted in favor, while all 45 Democratic Assembly representatives voted against. In the Senate, 17 Republicans voted in favor, while 15 Democrats voted against it.
 
Don’t fall for messaging that makes you fear voter fraud. There is no need for this amendment. It is based on a contrived issue and already covered by a statute.
 
Proponents of the amendment pull out an unsubstantiated mantra about election integrity and preventing fraud. Sponsor Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), for instance, said in written testimony that “Wisconsin’s voter ID requirement has been widely successful in preserving election integrity and ensuring that citizens are confident that the ballots cast are legitimate.”
 
But voter impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare. A study by The Washington Post and cited by the Brennan Center in this report found only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation fraud in more than 1 billion votes nationwide over a 14-years period. Doing the math, that’s 0.0000031% of the time. Another study, conducted as part of an investigative project centered in the Arizona State University journalism school found just 10 cases of voter impersonation nationwide from 2000 to 2012. "With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters," the reporters wrote.

In addition, the voter ID law already exists in a Wisconsin statute, and according to the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) and National Conference of State Legislatures it’s one of the strictest in the nation because the ID has to be photographic and valid. Per the LRB, although 36 states request or require voters to present some form of identification to vote, in most states photographic ID is not required or else there is a procedure to allow voters without an ID to vote. Not so here.

An important point to consider regarding this proposed amendment: because of the voter ID law already in place, the people who can’t get acceptable identification cards will not be able to vote on it.
 
Please consider voting ”no” on their behalf.
 
There is no reasonable purpose for this provision to be added to the Wisconsin Constitution . . . unless one is worried that the law could change someday.
 
Statements by certain Republican legislators indicate that cementing the voter ID law in place against future attacks in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, especially if Susan Crawford should win this election, is the real reason for the proposed constitutional amendment. The voter ID law cannot violate the state constitution if it’s itself part of that constitution.
 
Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) wrote in written testimony supporting the proposed amendment that “Democratic activists on social media are openly asking someone to challenge Wisconsin’s Voter ID law in the Wisconsin Supreme Court” and that he was “not willing to risk a Wisconsin Supreme Court unburdened by precedent and the Wisconsin Constitution declaring Voter ID laws unconstitutional.”
 
The Ballotpedia website has reported Rep. Bob Kreibich (R-New Richmond) as saying: “For clarification, photo ID is already required by Wisconsin State Statute. But a ‘yes’ vote would amend the Wisconsin Constitution to include this requirement, which will further protect the integrity of the voting system from our leftist-activist WI Supreme Court.”
 
In addition, placing the voter ID law in the constitution protects it against change should the Legislature someday flip to the Democrats. Amending the state constitution is a years-long process that takes substantial effort. Amending or repealing a statute is far easier.

The state constitution should not be changed for political reasons from a document guaranteeing rights to one that restricts rights, especially when a statute already is in place, the purported problem is nonexistent, and some voters will be denied the ability to vote.
 
Disenfranchisement is more prevalent than voter impersonation fraud, though difficult to measure. John Johnson from the Marquette University Law School’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education recently conducted an analysis of Wisconsin population and driver’s license data to arrive at an estimate that somewhere between zero and 6% of adult Wisconsin residents lack a Department of Motor Vehicles photographic ID card. That translates into up to about 290,000 individuals, Johnson said.
 
He found that young adults not enrolled in college and adults living in poverty are the two groups most likely negatively impacted by the voter photo ID requirement.
 
In written testimony opposing the proposed amendment, the Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources wrote that “(o)lder voters who lack an acceptable photo ID for voting may not have the availability, financial resources, or mobility to obtain the necessary ID; those who are rural or low-income may face significant barriers obtaining the needed documentation.”
 
All Voting is Local Action wrote that “(e)nshrining voter ID in Wisconsin's constitution risks disenfranchising voters, especially marginalized groups, addresses nonexistent voter fraud, and diverts focus from real issues. Existing laws work—this amendment adds barriers and harms democracy.”

In his written statement of support of the proposed amendment, Wanggaard asserted that “(c)ontrary to claims made when Voter ID was passed, the law has not resulted in voter suppression. In fact, voter participation has increased since being implemented in 2014.” But he cited no authority for the assertion and ignored the possibility that voter participation increased because of the contentious elections in 2016, 2020, 2023, and 2024, and that it would have increased more (and possibly resulted in different outcomes) had the voter ID law not been in effect.
 
Numerous organizations have voiced opposition to the proposed amendment, with several signing a joint letter published as a full-page advertisement in the Journal Sentinel in February.
 
This is the third round of proposed amendments in the last 12 months targeting the state constitution’s suffrage provisions.

Here's the full text of the proposed amendment:
​
Section 1m (1) No qualified elector may cast a ballot in any election unless the elector presents valid photographic identification that verifies the elector’s identity and that is issued by this state, the federal government, a federally recognized American Indian tribe or band in this state, or a college or university in this state. The legislature shall by law establish acceptable forms of photographic identification, and the legislature may by law establish exceptions to the requirement under this section.
 
(2) A qualified elector who is unable to present valid photographic identification on election day shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot may not be counted unless the elector presents valid photographic identification at a later time and place as provided by the legislature by law. ​

​The following lists are based on the entities that registered in favor or against the proposed amendment during its second round through the Legislature or signed the joint letter that was published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The list is not meant to reflect all entities that may support or oppose the proposed amendment.

​Supporters
Wisconsin’s Republican legislators
FGA Action Inc.

Opponents
All Voting is Local Wisconsin Action
ACLU of Wisconsin
Black Leaders Organizing for Communities
Chippewa Valley Votes
Citizen Action of Wisconsin
Common Cause
Disability Rights Wisconsin
EXPO of Wisconsin
Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources
Law Forward
Leaders Igniting Transformation Action Fund
League of Women Voters of Wisconsin
Milwaukee Turners
Souls to the Polls Wisconsin
VoteRiders
WAVE Educational Fund
Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools
Conservation Voters
Wisconsin Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
Wisconsin Disability Vote Coalition
Wisconsin Interfaith Voter Engagement Campaign
Wisconsin Justice Initiative & WJI Action
Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance
Wisconsin Public Education Network​