There have been no instances of voter impersonation fraud in Missouri since 2000 (from an investigative news report). Zero. Nada.

It’s all about pretending to solve a problem that doesn’t exist as a cover to suppress the vote of qualified voters who tend to support the other party.

From Speaker Pro Tem Denny Hoskins (r):

Denny Hoskins, CPA

Speaker Pro Tem

Missouri House of Representatives

District 54

[….]

Capitol Report

February 27, 2014

Preventing Fraud in Missouri Elections

This week on the House floor we debated Voter ID reform. Currently, Missouri voters are not required to present photo identification in order to vote, leaving ample opportunities for fraud in the election process. HJR 47 would require every voter to submit a photo ID on Election Day. To prevent the disenfranchisement of voters who do not have or cannot afford to obtain photo identification, HB 1073 allows voters to cast provisional ballots and then return to the polls with a photo ID so their vote may be counted. Individuals who do not have proper photo identification will also be provided a free photo ID. Fair and reliable voting is the backbone of democracy and in some counties across the state there are more registered voters than eligible voters. I believe this legislation will help protect Missouri elections and now is the time to reduce voter fraud.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

“…this legislation will help protect Missouri elections and now is the time to reduce voter fraud…”

Interesting. Representative Hoskins didn’t mention “voter impersonation fraud”. Voter ID wouldn’t in any way address registration fraud or double voting at the polls on Election Day.

If you’ve worked a polling place on Election Day you understand the extreme risks someone would have to take to perpetrate voter impersonation fraud. The poll workers are usually from the precinct (your friends and neighbors). They may know the person the hypothetical impersonator would try to impersonate. There may or may not be Poll Watchers or Poll Challengers from the political parties keeping track of voters they’ve identified as part of their get out the vote programs. The person who someone might try to impersonate could have already voted or could be in the immediate vicinity about to vote. The thing is, the hypothetical impersonator wouldn’t have a certainty of knowing. All that risk for one vote? It’s not worth it.

However, anything that suppresses the vote of 220,000 qualified Missouri voters that tend to vote for the other party is a good thing in the eyes of the republicans in the General Assembly.

Representative Hoskins (r) thinks we’re all too stoopid to understand that.

Previously:

HJR 47: a “constitutional” solution in search of a problem (February 25, 2014)

Secretary of State Jason Kander (D): on attempts to suppress the vote (February 23, 2014)

Secretary of State Jason Kander (D): with Melissa Harris-Perry on MSNBC on voter ID (February 9, 2014)

Finally, documentation of voter impersonation fraud in Missouri. Zero. (August 12, 2012)

Today, on a vehicle in west central Missouri:

Might be in the 47% and doesn’t yet know it.

Ah, legislative priorities.

A bill, filed today by Representative Joe Don McGaugh (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 2045

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE MCGAUGH.

6186L.01I       D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 10, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the designation of the white-tailed deer as the official state game animal.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 10, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 10.111, to read as follows:

           10.111. The “white-tailed deer” (odocoileus virginianus) is selected for and shall be known as the official game animal of the state of Missouri.

[emphasis in original]

And here we all thought it was gonna be squirrel. The car thing would’ve worked there, too.

Previously: The General Assembly will soon be in session (January 8, 2008)

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C000960 02/27/2014 MO DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE Anheuser-Bush One Bush Place St Louis MO 63118 2/27/2014 $7,500.00

[emphasis added]

That’s got to be considerably less than the average annual profits from beer consumption by party members, right?

Heh.

You know how rightwingers like to talk about how everything they do is because of freedom? Freedom from corporate regulations that protect air, water and consumers, freedom from unions and those pesky rights that unions protect, freedom from Obamacare and the healthcare it provides for millions; the list of what these freedom fighters struggle against is almost endless and covers most of the things that guarantee a happy, healthy and prosperous middle class in America.

The most recent freedom drumbeating seems to involve the freedom of certain brands of religious folks to discriminate against those who offend them. In the wake of LGBT successes in obtaining marriage rights via state legislatures and in the courts, rightwingers have fought back with bills that would enable businesses to refuse service to folks whose “lifestyles” upset their fundamentalist Christian sensibilities (I add the word “fudamentalist” to make it clear that not all Christians are bigots). If, like me, you’re of a certain age, it makes you think of the bad old days when good, white Christian businessmen refused to serve African-Americans because Jesus wanted the inferior races kept in their place.

And the similarity to old-time racial discrimination hasn’t gone unnoticed by those responding to a bill introduced in the Missouri legislature by state Senator Wayne Wallingford (R-27), SB 916:

Mike Masterson, chairman of the Cape Girardeau County Democratic Central Committee, said the attack on freedom of religion is somewhat a recreation of Jim Crow laws. Stating his opinion as an individual and not for the local Democrats, he wrote in an email to the Southeast Missourian that “There is no war on religion as is being asserted by Mr. Wallingford. To me, this type of proposed legislation is camouflaging bigotry behind the shield of religion.”

Wallingford, disingenuously, claims that the bill does not seek to target the LGBT community and is not meant to defend violators of existing civil rights laws. However, he seems somewhat unclear on the concept, or, as the SouthEast Missourian suggests, he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth:

On Wednesday, Wallingford posted on his Facebook page that his bill “is simply a measure to improve the Religious Freedom Registration Act by allowing individuals to have access to RFRA protections in private lawsuits, rather than having to sue the state for relief after their rights have been violated. This bill is meant to ensure that the government is not able to force individuals to violate their religious beliefs, and will provide protections to all. This is not a bill about discrimination. Indeed, it specifically says that the law shall not be construed to provide a defense in discrimination cases.”

In a story published on the Kansas City Star’s website Tuesday, Wallingford was quoted as saying his bill “is trying to provide a defense in those types of instances.” The newspaper reported that Wallingford pointed to examples such as a case publicized in Washington state, where a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding and where a baker in Colorado refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men

.

The  bill does indeed specify that it cannot be used to defend against infractions of current civil rights laws. But, while Missouri has enacted employment non-discrimination laws that recognize sexual orientation and hate-crime laws that protect transgender individuals as well, that’s the extent of explicit LGBT protections. It’s hard not to conclude that LGBT individuals in Missouri are absolutely vulnerable to this law – along, potentially, with other unprotected classes of individuals who might cause the sensitive moral antennae of some religious folks to quiver. Given the delicate sensibilities of some conservative Christians, it could get to be quite a free-for-all.

The irony is that this bill, which Wallingford admits is modeled on the outrageous freedom to discriminate bill passed by the Arizona legislature, has been taken up here in Missouri just a few days before Governor Jan Brewer saw fit to veto the Arizona bill. As TPM’s Josh Mashall notes, the most recent response to these blatant attempts to institutionalize discrimination has been “an almost comical run for the exits by various supporters and quasi-supporters trying to get out from under legislation that a growing body of people saw as silly, mean-spirited, economically damaging and completely needless.”  But not Missouri, no sir, we work hard to earn our backwardness label.

Quotes added in 2nd paragraph. Fourth paragraph edited slightly for clarity.

Rex Sinquefield finally got some company.

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121045 02/26/2014 TEACHGREAT.ORG StudentsFirst 825 K Street 2nd Floor Sacramento CA 95814 2/24/2014 $31,000.00

[emphasis added]

StudentsFirst is Michelle Rhee‘s organization.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: Bah, humbug! (December 25, 2013)

Campaign Finance: teachers are evil, except when they save kids from a tornado or a crazed gunman (May 24, 2013)

Campaign Finance: using a lot of money to beat up on teachers (May 28, 2012)

[….]

Teachgreat doesn’t quite cut it. Add a PAC on teaching and Rex Sinquefield’s money and what you get is just another astroturf organization dedicated to trashing K-12 public education.

[….]

It appears that Senator Brian Nieves (r) has drawn a primary. At 4:03 p.m. yesterday Representative Dave Schatz (r), who was first elected in the 61st Legislative District in 2010 (and not yet subject to term limits), filed as a candidate in the 26th Senate District, challenging Senator Nieves (r) in the primary.

Via the Missouri Secretary of State:

It interesting to note that ten minutes after Representative Schatz (r) filed for the Senate Justin Alfermann filed to replace Schatz as a republican candidate in the 61st Legislative District at 4:13 p.m.:

It’s all in the timing.

Representative Schatz (r) does not have a particularly low key legislative agenda (for the current session):

HB1093 Lant, Bill Schatz, Dave HB 1093 1/9/2014 Referred: Workforce Development and Workplace Safety

4567H.01I – Requires authorization for certain labor unions to use dues and fees to make political contributions and requires consent for withholding earnings from paychecks

HB1094 Lant, Bill Schatz, Dave HB 1094 1/9/2014 Referred: Workforce Development and Workplace Safety

4569H.01I – Specifies that no person as a condition or continuation of employment can be required to engage in or cease engaging in specified labor organization practices

HB1095 Lant, Bill Schatz, Dave HB 1095 1/9/2014 Referred: Workforce Development and Workplace Safety

4568H.01I – Specifies that no person as a condition or continuation of employment can be required to engage in or cease engaging in specified labor organization practices

HB1148 Hicks, Ron Schatz, Dave HB 1148 1/9/2014 Referred: Health Care Policy

4185H.01I – Requires an ultrasound to be conducted and reviewed with the pregnant woman prior to the 24-hour waiting period for an abortion

HB1478 Swan, Kathryn Schatz, Dave HB 1478 1/22/2014 Referred: Health Care Policy

5105H.02I – Changes the laws regarding the protection of women’s health care

HJR43 Lant, Bill Schatz, Dave HJR 43 1/9/2014 Referred: Workforce Development and Workplace Safety

4448H.01I – Proposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit public labor organizations from withholding sums from the earning of public employees for the payment of dues or fees without consent

HJR44 Lant, Bill Schatz, Dave HJR 44 1/9/2014 Referred: Workforce Development and Workplace Safety

4451H.01I – Proposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit employers from requiring persons to become members of a private labor organization as a condition of employment

HJR55 Hicks, Ron Schatz, Dave HJR 55 1/28/2014 Public Hearing Completed (H)

4677L.01I – Proposes a constitutional amendment protecting a citizen’s right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife and the use of traditional devices and methods to exercise the right

From 2013:

HB872 Schatz, Dave Kolkmeyer, Glen HB 872 4/23/2013 Public Hearing Completed (H)

2052L.01I – Removes the renewal requirements for concealed carry endorsements making them valid for life if not suspended or revoked

HB77 Burlison, Eric Schatz, Dave HCS HBs 77, 91 & 95 5/9/2013 Rules – Reported Do Pass (H)

0370H.05C – Specifies that no person as a condition or continuation of employment can be required to engage in or cease engaging in specified labor organization practices

HB350 Frederick, Keith Schatz, Dave HCS HB 350 4/24/2013 Rules – Reported Do Pass (H)

1071L.02C – Prohibits the publication of any identifying information of firearm owners and prohibits health care professionals from being required to inquire, document, or disclose a patient’s status as a firearm owner

HB378 Kelley, Mike Schatz, Dave HB 378 2/27/2013 Referred: Health Care Policy

1222L.01I – Prohibits a licensed pharmacy from being required to carry or maintain in inventory any specific prescription or nonprescription drug or device

HB386 McCaherty, John Schatz, Dave HB 386 3/13/2013 Voted Do Pass (H)

1187H.01I – Establishes the Abortion Ban for Sex Selection and Genetic Abnormalities Act of 2013 to prohibit an abortion solely due to the sex of the unborn child or a genetic abnormality diagnosis

HB400 Riddle, Jeanie Schatz, Dave HB 400 7/12/2013 Gov Took no Action, Sent to Sec of State/Article 3 Sec 31(H)

0839L.01T – Establishes requirements for the administration of RU-486 or any other abortion-inducing drug or chemical

From 2012:

HB1512 Curtman, Paul Schatz, Dave HB 1512 5/1/2012 Public Hearing Held (S)

5396L.01P – Establishes the Civil Liberties Defense Act which specifies how courts may rule in contractual disputes involving the laws of other countries and in jurisdictional issues involving other countries

HB1637 Curtman, Paul Schatz, Dave SCS HCS HB 1637 5/16/2012 Placed on Informal Calendar

5143S.06C – Establishes the Missouri Sound Money Act of 2012 which changes the laws regarding legal tender

HB1747 Wells, Don Schatz, Dave HB 1747 3/5/2012 Public Hearing Completed (H)

5867H.01I – Changes the laws regarding weapons

HB1933 McCaherty, John Schatz, Dave HB 1933 5/2/2012 Public Hearing Completed (H)

5798L.02I – Establishes the Abortion Ban for Sex Selection and Genetic Abnormalities Act of 2012 to prohibit an abortion solely due to the sex of the unborn child or a genetic abnormality diagnosis

HB2051 Cookson, Steve Schatz, Dave HB 2051 4/18/2012 Referred: Elementary and Secondary Education (H)

6277L.02I – Prohibits the discussion of sexual orientation in public school instruction, material, or extracurricular activity except in scientific instruction on human reproduction

HCR9 Curtman, Paul Schatz, Dave HCR 9 2/20/2012 Public Hearing Completed (H)

4379L.02I – Urges the United States Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Transparency Act to require a complete audit of the Federal Reserve

HJR49 Brattin, Rick Schatz, Dave HJR 49 4/30/2012 Public Hearing Held (S)

4422L.01P – Proposes a constitutional amendment specifying that the right of every citizen to possess or purchase ammunition and articles for the proper functioning of arms must not be infringed or limited

HJR64 Curtman, Paul Schatz, Dave HCS HJR 64 5/9/2012 Rules – Reported Do Pass (H)

4479L.02C – Proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system

HJR72 Bahr, Kurt Schatz, Dave HJR 72 3/22/2012 Referred: General Laws (H)

5301L.01I – Proposes a constitutional amendment specifying that each citizen has an inherent liberty that includes being able to make decisions regarding lawful health care-related services or products

Gee, this stuff looks familiar.

As if there’s any substantive difference between the two?

By @BginKC

A Missouri state senator is sponsoring one of those vile, hateful “religious liberty” bigotry bills that would codify in law second class citizen status for gay and lesbian Missourians and allow every inbred Ozark goober who “hates fags” to refuse to sell gasoline to the driver of a car sporting a rainbow flag – or a Darwin fish – because they’re good Christians and they’re confident that Jesus would discriminate against those degenerates, too.

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Wallingford of Cape Girardeau, states that a governmental authority shall not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that it has a compelling interest.

To supporters of the idea – similar to legislation filed in several other states – the goal is to make it clear that private individuals can use religious beliefs as a defense in litigation.

“We’re trying to protect Missourians from attacks on their religious freedom,” Wallingford said.

Opponents contend bills like Wallingford’s would allow businesses to discriminate against anyone they do not like, most notably gays and lesbians.

“It’s a legislative attempt to legalize discrimination toward (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) individuals,” said A.J. Bockelman, executive director of the LGBT rights organization PROMO.

Wallingford said he based the bill loosely on legislation that has been debated in other states, such as Kansas and Arizona. He pointed to instances that have cropped up in debate in those other states.

When I saw the article on the Kansas City Star site yesterday, I first hit the ceiling, then I got dangerous – that’s what my husband calls it when I get quiet and methodical – I put my “journalist” hat on and called his office (that number is 573-751-2459 if you want to call him) and I got his office voice mail. I identified myself by name and press affiliation as well as my phone number, and said I just had one question: If he was personally financially responsible for defending this blatantly unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause in the courts, instead of the bill falling to the taxpayers of this state, would he still be sponsoring it? I then repeated my name and affiliation and phone number, and asked for someone to please call me back. Quelle surprise…no one did.

The dust has cleared from the first day of candidate filing for the 2014 election cycle. Via the Secretary of State:

First day of candidate filing summary from the Missouri Secretary of State.

You think those party ratios in the General Assembly are an indication of the power of incumbency? Just asking. If you do run you may lose. If you don’t file you can’t win. If no Democrats files in a district who will Democrats vote for? Just asking.

Remain calm, don’t hyperventilate yet. Candidate filing is open until March 25, 2014.

And in the 3rd Congressional District:

What are the odds of an “All in the Family” general election race?

It would have been cute if they had waited in line together. Or, could this be an indication of something? Just asking.

A bill, introduced yesterday by Senator Wayne Wallingford (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILL NO. 916 [pdf]

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY SENATOR WALLINGFORD.

Read 1st time February 24, 2014, and ordered printed.

TERRY L. SPIELER, Secretary. 6183S.01I

AN ACT

To repeal sections 1.302 and 1.307, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to the exercise of religion.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Sections 1.302 and 1.307, RSMo, are repealed and one new 2 section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 1.302, to read as follows:

1.302. 1. [….] As used in this section, the following shall mean:

(1) “Demonstrates”, meets the burden of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion;

(2) “Exercise of religion”, an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief;

(3) “Relevant circumstances”, includes legitimate penological interests needed to protect the safety and security of incarcerated persons and correctional facilities, but shall not include reasonable requests by incarcerated individuals for the opportunity to pray, reasonable access to clergy, use of religious materials that are not violent or profane, and reasonable dietary requests.

2. A governmental authority shall not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental authority demonstrates that the burden on the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest, and the burden is the least restrictive means to further that compelling interest, considering the relevant circumstances.

3. This section provides a claim or defense for state and local laws, resolutions and ordinances, and executive orders, and the implementation of such laws, resolutions, ordinances, and executive orders, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after August 28, 2014, which violate the free exercise of religion established pursuant to this section.

4. This section shall apply without regard to whether a state or local governmental authority is a party to the claim, proceeding, or other legal dispute.

5. Nothing in this section shall be construed:

(1) To authorize any governmental authority to burden any religious belief;

(2) To establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution based on a federal, state, or local civil rights law involving discrimination as defined in section 213.010; or

(3) To allow any person to cause physical injury to another person, to possess a weapon otherwise prohibited by law, to fail to provide monetary support for a child or to fail to provide health care for a child suffering from a life-threatening condition.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

It’d be nice if there was an amendment which required businesses to disclose if they subscribed to and applied this if it becomes law. That way I’d know to take my business elsewhere.

In case you were wondering, LGBT individuals, their allies, their friends, and their families do spend money.