Fee for voter ID might be unconstitutional

House Republican leaders unveiled their proposal Thursday for a voter ID law, and they plan to hold a public hearing on the legislation next Wednesday before beginning debate on it.

"This amounts to a poll tax, and it must be challenged," said Bob Hall, executive director of voting rights group Democracy North Carolina.

Charging someone money to vote is a poll tax, which is outlawed by the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Other states with voter ID laws offer free IDs to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay.

Under the North Carolina legislation, people would have to pay for the ID unless they're willing to swear under penalty of perjury – a felony offense – that they're too poor to pay for it.

"If they say they have financial hardship, the same penalties of perjury apply if they misrepresent that," Rep. Tom Murry, R-Wake, said Thursday.

The voter ID bill doesn't define financial hardship, and House Speaker Thom Tillis said he isn't sure how it would be policed.

"What we're simply saying is someone who comes in who is clearly able to pay for it, then they, like the people who come in and get a driver's license, should pay the cost," Tillis said Thursday.

Hall said the proposed financial hardship oath could scare off voters who might fear being challenged and potentially prosecuted for seeking a free ID.

"What is 'financial hardship'?" Hall asked. "It's a criminal penalty that you're putting yourself at risk of. I don't think people are going to do that."

The proposal could fall afoul of the state constitution, too. 

Section 10 of the North Carolina Constitution states "All elections shall be free." But Jeanette Doran, executive director of the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law, said that doesn't mean free of cost.

"That means free of intimidation or coercion. It's not free in terms of dollars-and-cents concept," Doran said.

Former North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr is also an expert on the state's constitution. He disagrees with Doran's interpretation of Section 10.

"It says, 'Elections shall be free, period,'" Orr said. "Essentially, that's not just monetarily free, but sort of a broad constitutional concept that there are not going to be impediments to people being able to vote."

Orr, Doran and Hall agree the court fight over voter ID will likely last for years – and state taxpayers will foot the bill for it.

"It's just crazy," Hall said. "It's millions and millions and millions of dollars for something that they haven't yet shown that there's a reason for government to spend money to do."