The 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would make for timely reading for any member of the Missouri General Assembly. In clear language, it states:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”

The courts consistently have seen through transparent attempts to levy poll taxes. In short, if money changes hands, particularly if it is a burden to pay, then fees associated with voting can be deemed an unlawful tax and an unconstitutional barrier to voting.

This matters because key Republican legislators who hold sway in Jefferson City seem determined to approve a proposed constitutional amendment governing voter identification before adjourning Friday. In every version of the proposal debated so far, otherwise eligible voters could be denied their chance to cast a ballot because of matters beyond their control, including financial barriers.

Representatives of the League of Women Voters, AARP and the Missouri Association for Social Welfare all have raised concerns. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat and overseer of the state’s elections, is leading the charge against the Republicans pushing for any voter to present government-issued photo identification.

Ms. Carnahan contends Missouri already has adequate safeguards in place. A voter may present any one of these documents: identification issued by the state or federal government, including a voter registration card; identification from a Missouri institution of higher education; a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or other government document that contains the name and address of the voter; or a driver’s license or state identification card.

Supporters contend that many of these documents do nothing to establish citizenship — a presumed requirement for voting — and say anything short of a government-issued photo ID does not do enough to prevent election fraud. Yet, opponents recite examples where obtaining such an ID was burdensome, time-consuming, subject to bureaucratic delays and an added expense for otherwise eligible voters.

State Sen. Delbert Scott, R-Clinton, is carrying the legislation in the Senate and has said he will consider changes specifying that the state pay the cost of documents that must be rounded up to obtain a photo ID, and pay any cost of the ID itself. This easily could run into millions of dollars for taxpayers, but the alternative well could be unconstitutional.

This is no small point. The Constitution makes no exception for a “few” instances of disenfranchised voters. It says all who are eligible are entitled to vote.