Weinschenk v. State
Missouri Supreme Court
203 S.W.3d 201 (2006)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
In 2006, the Missouri legislature amended the state’s voter-identification law to require registered voters to present a nonexpired photo identification issued by the federal or Missouri state government to cast a ballot. Prior to the amendment, the law required voters to show identification, but the list of acceptable documents was much broader and included expired licenses, water bills, and identification issued by another state. Although the photo identification was free, some citizens had to spend money to obtain birth certificates or other documentation necessary for issuance of the identification. Kathleen Weinschenk and other residents (plaintiffs) sued the state (defendant) to block enforcement of the amendment before it went into effect, alleging that it violated their federal and state equal-protection rights. At trial, evidence was presented that showed there were no identified incidences of voter-impersonation fraud between the passage of the 2002 voter-identification law and the 2006 amendment. The trial court found the amendment unconstitutional, and the state appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Limbaugh, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
