Opinion: Changes to voter ID bill make sense and the Senate should approve it this way

When it comes to the right to vote, a combination of bills in Kentucky could lead to a net positive for voters this year — so long as the legislature keeps easy access to the ballot as its focus.

First, as I have discussed previously, the state is poised to have a new photo ID law for voting — but importantly, that law, as passed in the House, now includes various exceptions that will minimize the potential negative effect on voters. I still think the photo ID law is unnecessary.

At a minimum, the state should delay the implementation of the law to 2021 instead of this November, as that would give election officials the time needed to ensure everyone has an ID and to educate poll workers and voters about the new law. (It will not be in effect for this May’s primaries.)

A court may well delay the law if there is litigation later this year. But I’m glad that the House has adopted many of the suggestions I made to improve the bill.

The Senate’s refusal to concur in the House’s version on Thursday was a mistake: Each of the changes the House made will help voters without undermining the integrity of our elections.

The House should stay firm on its changes, and the Senate should accept the bill in its current form. The current version is a model of compromise that creates a photo ID law but in a way that avoids most of the problems other states have experienced when passing stricter requirements. A court would likely uphold the House version.

On Politics:Is the proposed Kentucky voter ID law all about McConnell's election?

Under the new law, as passed in the House, any number of government or university IDs — including from out of state and regardless of whether the ID lists an expiration date — that include a voter’s name and photograph will suffice.

Voters who do not have a photo ID but bring in a non-photo ID, such as a credit card or Social Security card, can vote via a regular ballot if they fill out a form explaining why they do not have a photo ID, which now will include a space to provide a reason not already listed on the form. And voters who bring in nothing, but who a poll worker knows, can still vote based on personal recognizance so long as the poll worker fills out an affidavit.

Essentially, the only voter who might be turned away is someone who shows up without a photo ID, without a non-photo ID and a reason for not having a photo ID, or who a poll worker does not know.

Although even one person improperly denied the right to vote is one too many, there are probably very few people who would fail to satisfy one of these requirements. Of course, as I’ve explained, the photo ID law is ultimately unnecessary, as there is no evidence of any in-person impersonation at the polls, but at least the changes to the bill will likely minimize the harm. The Senate should accept them.

Second, and importantly, the legislature will consider an “easy-to-vote” bill — House Bill 596 — that Republican Rep. Jason Nemes is sponsoring, backed by Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams.

Yes, contrary to the common storyline nationwide, some Republicans here are supporting expanded voting laws: it’s, in fact, one reason I agreed to work on the photo ID law, knowing that this second bill was coming as well.

Background:Kentucky Republicans say voter ID bill will 'increase confidence' in election process

Under the law, polls would stay open until 7 p.m. instead of 6 p.m. (though 8 p.m. would be even better), the registration deadline would go from the current 30 days before the election to 21 days, counties could adopt countywide Vote Centers (where a voter is not tied to a home-based precinct and instead could vote at any Vote Center in the county), more people could take advantage of absentee or early voting, and counties would have an easier time finding poll workers.

Of course, I would love to see further changes of the sort I recount in my book on positive voting rights reforms: same day voter registration and automatic voter registration, universal vote-by-mail or at least no-excuse absentee voting, the ability of localities to let 16-year-olds vote in local elections, the adoption of Ranked Choice Voting and more. But this bill is a great start.

Secretary Adams has pledged to work with any lawmaker who wishes to engage in substantive discussions and seek common ground. He even set up meetings via Twitter with two Democratic members of the House. This is how our politics should work: by listening to each other, finding areas of agreement, and being willing to compromise.

Spring 2020 could be a watershed moment for Kentucky election law. Alongside Gov. Andy Beshear’s executive order to reenfranchise 152,000 former felons, this new positive voting rights bill will expand access to lots of Kentucky voters. If the price to pay in our current political environment is a more reasonable form of a photo ID law — along with improved dialogue and trust from both sides of the aisle — then the price is worth it for a stronger democracy.

Opinion: Kentucky photo ID bill needs more work and should take effect after 2020 election

Joshua A. Douglas is a law professor at the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law. He is the author of "Vote for US: How to Take Back Our Elections and Change the Future of Voting." Find him at http://www.JoshuaADouglas.com/ and follow him on Twitter @JoshuaADouglas.