I can’t help but be amused by Indiana’s experience with what, up to this time, has been a tried and true pander sure to reap positive results. What I’m talking about is the controversy over the state’s “religious liberty” law. When things didn’t go as expected with this effort to institutionalize discrimination under the rubric of religion, the poor schmuck of a governor, Republican Mike Pence, caught between an elderly, Christian fundamentalist rock and a corporate hard place, didn’t know which way to turn. As Paul Waldman noted in The Washington Post, Pence and the bevy of GOP movers and shakers who thought it was a sure winner to line up behind Indiana’s effort to okay discrimination, were “surprised by just how many directions that criticism came from, with everyone from business leaders to religious groups making their opposition clear.”

After all, for several years hardline conservatives have assumed with some justification that the way to impinge on the rights of groups or individuals they find unsympathetic is to assert a “competing right,” no matter how silly or unfounded. In this particular case, there’s a special helping of deja vu for many of us: “religious freedom” was, of course, invoked by many in the 1950s and 60s to justify discrimination against African-Americans. However, as E. J. Dionne observed:

Religious-liberty exceptions that have been carefully thought through make good sense. They involve balancing when it is appropriate to exempt religious people from laws of general application and when it isn’t. But turning religious liberty into a sweeping slogan that can be invoked to resist any social change that some group of Americans doesn’t like will create a backlash against all efforts at accommodating religion. Forgive me, but this is bad for the brand of religious liberty.

And maybe that is what is finally happening. In spite of the potentially negative consequences that Dionne suggests, after years of having exaggerated and spurious claims of religious victimhood treated as serious by a compliant media, it is both surprising and gratifying to witness the backlash to this particular instance of the religious right’s faux poor me whining. It’s fun to see those political friends of big business, often euphemistically referred to as GOP “moderates,” most of whom have rather obviously been playing the God game for political purposes only, suddenly try to back off the right to discriminate ledge without alienating those on the religious right who won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t leap.

Which brings me to Roy Blunt, one of the very best friend of big business . Blunt, who is, I have to admit, a little too rational to completely satisfy the true, hardcore, Missouri rightwing, seems to have thought that he had a real winner with this religious liberty schtick, a way to burnish his conservative bona fides without actually hurting any of his real constituents – you know, Monsanto, AT&T, Big Oil, etc. If the well-being of corporations is his main job, religious liberty has become his hobby. A few of the high points of Blunt’s religious liberty preoccupation:

–In 2012 he introduced the Blunt amendment which would “have given unprecedented discretion to any employer or insurance plan, whether or not religious, to exclude coverage for critical health care services on the basis of undefined “moral convictions.” As Think Progress noted:

Among those with the greatest to lose from proposals like the Blunt Amendment is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Broad and unfettered language of the kind advanced by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) would grant insurers and employers the right to deny coverage for nearly any service provided to LGBT patients.

— In 2013, Blunt was a co-sponsor of the senate version of a “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act” that could have potentially codified wholesale bigotry:

… the implications for this legislation are numerous, but could allow businesses to discriminate against employees with a same-sex spouse, government officials to discriminate against same-sex couples filing their taxes jointly, or religiously affiliated hospitals discriminating against patients with same-sex spouses.

— Blunt’s objections to updating ENDA were couched in terms of religous liberty:

As a former president of a Baptist college in Missouri, supporters of this bill have been quick to assure me that its most onerous provisions would not apply to that school. But no such exemption is available for Christian bookstore owners, as an example, or any other small business in which people of faith and deep religious conviction are relied upon as an integral part of the workforce.

Remind you of the  old feature vs. bug argument?

— In 2014, Blunt filed an amicus brief in support of the infamous Hobby-Lobby Supreme Court case.

As you can see, Senator Blunt has been very busy, rarely missing an opportunity to identify himself with the religious victims who might be forced to live and let live in a diverse culture. Will he persist in this leisure-time pursuit now that the efficacy of the word “religious” to obscure ugly intent seems to be waning? Should we share Brittany Cooper’s optimism?:

What this vocal contingent of the religious right is seeking to restore is not religious freedom but a sense of safety in expressing and imposing dangerous, retrograde and discriminatory ideas in the name of religion. I continue to support the free and unimpeded expression of religion. And I am hopeful that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s call for “clarification of the law” amid a massive backlash will actually force the Legislature to explicitly ban discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. Then perhaps the law could do what some legal scholars claim it was meant to do, namely, protect freedom of religious expression for religious minorities in the U.S.

Will Roy Blunt ever have to deal with the consequences of his actions? Or is Missouri really the kind of place where he’ll never have to say he’s sorry?

From the Missouri State Highway Patrol:

The statistics reflected on the following reports have been extracted from methamphetamine laboratory seizure incidents entered into the National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System. Seizures entered into the system are classified in one of three ways: Operational Laboratories, Chemical/Equipment/Glassware seizures, and Dumpsites. Data reflected in map format are cumulative totals of the three types of seizure classifications occurring in each separate county.

Missouri meth incidents by county, January through June 2013:

There appears to be a “meth belt” in Missouri.

Missouri meth incidents by county, 2012:

Anyone think there’s a direct correlation with banjo density? Just asking.

Currently there’s only one state [pdf] keeping us from being number one in 2013.

As we well know in Missouri, this is what we’ll all get if the republicans get the majority in the United States Senate. Imagine a Senate populated with more of the likes of Todd Akin (r) and Richard Mourdock (r), a teabagger darling in Indiana:

Richard Mourdock, republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Indiana: You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces. And I, too, certainly stand for life. I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life begins at conception. Uh, the only exception I have for, uh, to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother.  I, I just, I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is, uh, something that God intended to happen….

[[emphasis added]

And this is the republican nominee for President, Mitt Romney, heartily endorsing Richard Mourdock for United States Senate:

Mitt Romney (r): This fall I’m supporting Richard Mourdock for Senate. As State Treasurer, Richard worked with Governor Daniels to balance the budget and make government more accountable. As senator, Richard will be the fifty-first vote to repeal and replace government run healthcare. Richard will help stop the liberal Reid Pelosi agenda. With so much at stake I hope you’ll join me in supporting Richard Mourdock for U.S. Senate.

Richard Mourdock (r): I’m Richard Mourdock and I approve this message.

The Romney (r) ad for Mourdock (r) was released on October 21, 2012. The question is, does Mitt Romney approve Richard Mourdock’s message? Any bets on the Romney campaign insisting that the Mourdock campaign pull the ad?

“…With so much at stake…”

Any questions about their agenda?

In 1943, in a time of war, no less:

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL., 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

…If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us…

Well, it will certainly be an interesting new year. Via Balloon Juice, a republican senator in the Indiana General Assembly wishes to teach our children, well:

SENATE BILL No. 122

Synopsis: Performance contracts to sing national anthem. Provides that all public schools, charter schools, schools receiving public scholarships, and institutions of higher education must enter into an agreement with any person or group performing the national anthem at any event sponsored by the school that is open to the public to ensure standards for the performance. Provides for enforcement measures and a fine for not meeting the standards set.

Ah, is capital punishment for musical crimes in the mix? That may be a bandwagon I could hop on. The bill, introduced by Senator Vaneta Becker (r):

Introduced Version

SENATE BILL No. 122

[….]

January 4, 2012, read first time and referred to Committee on Education and Career Development.

[….]

A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning education.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SOURCE: IC 20-19-3-11; (12)IN0122.1.1. –>     SECTION 1. IC 20-19-3-11 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 11. (a) As used in this section, “department” refers to the department of education established under IC 20-19-3-1.

   (b) As used in this section, “national anthem” refers to the national anthem designated in 36 U.S.C. 301.

   (c) As used in this section, “school” means:

       (1) a public school, as defined in IC 20-18-2-15;

       (2) a charter school, as defined in IC 20-24-1-4; or

       (3) any school receiving state or local scholarship funds under IC 20-51.

   (d) As used in this section, “state educational institution” refers to a university, college, or other educational institution described in IC 21-7-13-32.

   (e) Beginning January 1, 2013, schools and state educational institutions must enter into an agreement with an individual or group before the individual or group is permitted to perform the national anthem at any event that is:

       (1) sponsored by the school or state educational institution; and

       (2) open to the public.

   (f) The agreement required by subsection (e) must provide the individual or group performing the national anthem with the standards and guidelines established under subsection (h). The agreement must require the individual or group performing the national anthem to comply with these standards and guidelines.

   (g) Any agreement entered into under this section must provide that if an individual or group performing the national anthem at a function of a school or state educational institution does not comply with the standards set under subsection (h), the individual shall pay the school or state educational institution a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25) to be deposited into the general fund of the school or state educational institution.

    (h) The department shall adopt the following rules under IC 4-22-2:

       (1) With input from the commission for higher education, standards and guidelines for the words of the national anthem and accompanying music that are acceptable under this section.

        (2) Procedures for making a record of any performance of the national anthem covered under this section, including provisions to maintain the record for two (2) years.

       (3) Procedures for filing complaints under this section.

       (4) Procedures for adjudicating complaints under this section.

   (i) Each state educational institution shall establish procedures for:

       (1) making a record of any performance of the national anthem covered under this section, including provisions to maintain the record for two (2) years;

       (2) filing complaints under this section; and

       (3) adjudicating complaints under this section.

[emphasis in original]



“…Any agreement entered into under this section must provide that if an individual or group performing the national anthem at a function of a school or state educational institution does not comply with the standards set under subsection (h), the individual shall pay the school or state educational institution a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25) to be deposited into the general fund of the school or state educational institution…”

I’d amend the bill to include a catalog of swear words subject to a $25 fine to be deposited into the general fund of the school or state educational institution. Think of the fundraising potential.

And where’s the republican controlled Missouri General Assembly on this? At an ALEC conference? There’s no bill yet from them on this subject.

Slackers.

Hey, if it happened in Indiana it could happen here in Missouri.

Missouri Constitution

Article VIII

SUFFRAGE AND ELECTIONS

Section 2

Qualifications of voters–disqualifications.

Section 2. All citizens of the United States, including occupants of soldiers’ and sailors’ homes, over the age of eighteen who are residents of this state and of the political subdivision in which they offer to vote are entitled to vote at all elections by the people…

[emphasis added]

That’s a pretty strong endorsement of the right to vote. Too bad they don’t have that “problem” in Indiana.

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn’t have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary’s Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn’t get one but came to the precinct anyway.

“One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go do that,'” Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren’t given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. “You have to remember that some of these ladies don’t walk well. They’re in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts…”

Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan issued a press release today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Contact: Ryan Hobart

Secretary Carnahan and Missouri Voters Discuss Costly Effects of Possible Voter Photo ID Law

St. Louis, Mo. – Secretary of State Robin Carnahan joined a group of Missouri voters today at the League of Women Voters office in St. Louis, Mo., to discuss the possible disenfranchisement of up to 240,000 Missourians if a proposed government Photo ID requirement for voting is pushed through the Missouri legislature. Many of those voters present lacked the necessary government issued Photo ID that would be required to vote

“As Missouri’s chief elections official, it’s my job to ensure fair elections, and elections cannot be fair if eligible voters are not allowed to vote,” said Carnahan. “Many of the registered voters who do not have the type of government ID required also do not have copies of the documents needed to obtain a government ID in the first place – like a birth certificate. What we heard today is that getting copies of these can be costly, time consuming and sometimes impossible.”

Secretary Carnahan was joined by voters like Lillie Lewis who has spent months trying to get a copy of her birth certificate so that she can get a government ID in Missouri. Mrs. Lewis was born in Mississippi in the mid-1930s and has been told by that state that they have no record of her birth. Without that birth certificate, Mrs. Lewis can not get a government issued Photo ID and therefore would not be allowed to vote if this proposal becomes law.

“It would be unacceptable for a voter to be denied the right to vote in America merely because an inefficient government bureaucracy can not provide a copy of a birth certificate to one of its citizens,” added Carnahan. “I urge the legislature to reject any proposal that could put the voting rights of up to 240,000 Missourians at risk.”

Also joining Secretary Carnahan was Richard von Glahn a 27-year-old, Ohio born Missouri voter who would be forced to wait several months and pay as much as $20 for a copy of his birth certificate in order to obtain the required government ID.

In addition, Sister Diana Oleskevich, of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, St. Louis Province and Sister Connie Probst of the Franciscan Sisters of our Lady of Perpetual Help were also there to express concerns because some of the nuns in their convents lack government issued Photo IDs. Other sisters spoke out about the impact this measure could have on nuns in their order. Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of St. Mary the Angel said that an informal survey indicated that 15 of the 35 voters in her convent did not have a valid government ID of the type required by this proposal. “This may sound like a good idea at first, but once you stop to think about who would really be affected, this is going to keep a lot of our loved ones from being able to vote,” she said.

This week it was reported that 12 nuns were turned away from the polls in Indiana because they lacked government Photo IDs.

The Missouri Supreme Court stuck down a 2006 Voter Photo ID law in October of that year, citing that it placed too much of a burden on eligible Missourian’s constitutional right to vote.

###

[emphasis added]

More on those Indiana nuns:

“…Here’s the supreme irony,” Borkowski said. “This law was passed supposedly to prevent and deter voter fraud, even though there was no real record of serious voter fraud in Indiana. Here you have a bunch of nuns whose votes can’t be accepted by a bunch of nuns … who live with them in the polling place in their convent because they don’t have an ID…”

“…The nuns and this young woman are the face of the supreme court case,” said Jonah Goldman, who directs the Lawyers Committee’s Campaign for Fair Elections. He said his group, which has bird-dogged polling places in primaries across the country over the past three months, also has found widespread confusion in other states over voter identification requirements…

Yep, it could happen in Missouri. Why? Because the republicans in the General Assembly want to suppress some votes:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

[PERFECTED]

HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 48

94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Reported from the Special Committee on Immigration May 2, 2008 with recommendation that House Committee Substitute for House Joint Resolution No. 48 Do Pass. Referred to the Committee on Rules pursuant to Rule 25(21)(f).

Reported from the Committee on Rules May 5, 2008 with recommendation that House Committee Substitute for House Joint Resolution No. 48 Do Pass, with a 150 minute time limit for debate on Perfection.

Taken up for Perfection May 7, 2008. House Committee Substitute for House Joint Resolution No. 48 ordered Perfected and printed.

D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

3572L.02P

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article VIII of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section relating to voter identification.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2008, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article VIII of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article VIII, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 8, to read as follows:

Section 8. Any person who seeks to vote in a public election may be required by law to establish his or her qualifications as a United States citizen lawfully residing in this state by providing a form of identification to election officials. The fo
rm of identification required to vote may be prescribed by law, and persons may be required by law to provide a valid government-issued photo identification to vote. The state shall provide at least one form of the identification required to vote at no cost to any otherwise qualified citizen who does not already possess such identification and who desires the identification in order to vote.

And look, the republicans all voted to suppress ID elderly voters:

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE (pdf)

Second Regular Session, 94th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY, WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008

…PERFECTION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION

HCS HJR 48, relating to voter identification, was taken up by Representative Cox.

Representative Low (39) offered House Amendment No. 1.

Representative Brown (30) raised points of order that House Amendment No. 1 is dilatory and goes beyond the scope of the resolution.

The Chair ruled the second point of order well taken.

Representative Walsh offered House Amendment No. 2.

Representative Jones (89) raised a point of order that House Amendment No. 2 goes beyond the scope of the resolution.

The Chair ruled the point of order well taken.

Representative Zimmerman offered House Amendment No. 3.

Representative Jones (89) raised a point of order that House Amendment No. 3 goes beyond the scope of the resolution.

The Chair ruled the point of order well taken.

Representative Bringer offered House Amendment No. 4.

Representative Jones (89) raised a point of order that House Amendment No. 4 goes beyond the scope of the resolution.

The Chair ruled the point of order well taken.

1378 Journal of the House

Representative Skaggs offered House Amendment No. 5.

House Amendment No. 5

AMEND House Committee Substitute for House Joint Resolution No. 48, Section 8, Page 1, Line 1, by inserting “Beginning January 1, 2009” before “Any”; and Further amend said bill by amending the title, enacting clause, and intersectional references accordingly.

Representative Skaggs moved that House Amendment No. 5 be adopted.

Which motion was defeated by the following vote:

AYES: 069

Aull Baker 25 Bland Bringer Brown 50

Burnett Casey Chappelle-Nadal Cunningham 86 Curls

Darrough Daus Donnelly Dougherty El-Amin

Fallert Frame George Grill Harris 23

Harris 110 Haywood Hodges Holsman Hoskins

Hubbard Hughes Johnson Komo Kratky

Kuessner Lampe LeVota Liese Low 39

Lowe 44 McClanahan Meiners Nasheed Norr

Oxford Page Quinn 9 Roorda Rucker

Salva Schieffer Schoemehl Shively Silvey

Skaggs Stevenson St. Onge Storch Swinger

Talboy Todd Villa Vogt Walsh

Walton Whorton Wildberger Witte Wright-Jones

Yaeger Young Zimmerman Zweifel

NOES: 084

Avery Baker 123 Bivins Brandom Brown 30

Bruns Cooper 155 Cox Cunningham 145 Davis

Day Deeken Denison Dethrow Dixon

Dusenberg Emery Ervin Faith Fares

Fisher Flook Franz Funderburk Grisamore

Guest Hobbs Hunter Icet Jones 89

Jones 117 Kasten Kelly Kingery Kraus

Lembke Lipke Loehner Marsh May

McGhee Moore Munzlinger Muschany Nance

Nieves Nolte Onder Parkinson Parson

Pearce Pollock Pratt Quinn 7 Richard

Robb Ruestman Sander Sater Schaaf

Schad Scharnhorst Schlottach Schneider Schoeller

Self Smith 14 Smith 150 Stream Sutherland

Thomson Threlkeld Tilley Viebrock Wallace

Wasson Wells Weter Wilson 119 Wilson 130

Wood Wright 159 Yates Mr Speaker

PRESENT: 000

Sixty-seventh Day-Wednesday, May 7, 2008 1379

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 008

Cooper 120 Corcoran Meadows Portwood Robinson

Ruzicka Scavuzzo Spreng

VACANCIES: 002

Representative Wildberger offered House Amendment No. 6.

Representative Jones (89) raised a point of order that House Amendment No. 6 goes beyond the scope of the resolution.

The Chair ruled the point of order well taken.

Representative Lampe offered House Amendment No. 7.

Representative Jones (89) raised a point of order that House Amendment No. 7 goes beyond the scope of the resolution.

The Chair ruled the point of order well taken.

Representative LeVota offered House Amendment No. 8.

Representative Jones (89) raised a point of order that House Amendment No. 8 goes beyond

the scope of the resolution.

The Chair ruled the point of order well taken.

Representative Wilson (130) assumed the Chair.

Speaker Pro Tem Pratt resumed the Chair.

On motion of Representative Cox, HCS HJR 48 was adopted.

On motion of Representative Cox, HCS HJR 48 was ordered perfected and printed by the following vote:

AYES: 089

Avery Baker 123 Bivins Brandom Brown 30

Bruns Cooper 120 Cooper 155 Cox Cunningham 145

Cunningham 86 Davis Day Deeken Denison

Dethrow Dixon Dusenberg Emery Ervin

Faith Fares Fisher Flook Franz

Funderburk Grisamore Guest Hobbs Hunter

Icet Jones 89 Jones 117 Kasten Kingery

Kraus Lembke Lipke Loehner Marsh

May McGhee Moore Munzlinger Muschany

Nance Nieves Nolte Onder Parkinson

Parson Pearce Pollock Portwood Pratt

Quinn 7 Richard Robb Ruestman Sander

1380 Journal of the House

Sater Schaaf Schad Scharnhorst Schlottach

Schneider Schoeller Self Silvey Smith 14

Smith 150 Stevenson St. Onge Stream Sutherland

Thomson Threlkeld Tilley Viebrock Wallace

Wasson Wells Weter Wilson 119 Wilson 130

Wood Wright 159 Yates Mr Speaker

NOES: 067

Aull Baker 25 Bland Bringer Brown 50

Burnett Casey Chappelle-Nadal Corcoran Curls

Darrough Daus Donnelly Dougherty El-Amin

Fallert Frame George Grill Harris 23

Harris 110 Haywood Hodges Holsman Hoskins

Hubbard Hughes Johnson Komo Kratky

Kuessner Lampe LeVota Liese Low 39

Lowe 44 McClanahan Meiners Nasheed Norr

Oxford Page Quinn 9 Robinson Roorda

Rucker Salva Schieffer Schoemehl Shively

Skaggs Storch Swinger Talboy Todd

Villa Vogt Walsh Walton Whorton

Wildberger Witte Wright-Jones Yaeger Young

Zimmerman Zweifel

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 005

Kelly Meadows Ruzicka Scavuzzo Spreng

VACANCIES: 002

[emphasis added]

It might be fun to ask the advocate of automotive deer hunting why he doesn’t want elderly nuns to vote.

And why are they trying to amend the Missouri Constitution? Because the Missouri Supreme Court said the republicans’ previous attempt at voter suppression a voter ID law was unconstitutional:

Kathleen Weinschenk, et al., Respondents, v. State of Missouri, Appellant, Robin Carnahan, Secretary of State, Respondent, Dale Morris and Senator Delbert Scott, Intervenors-Appellants.

Case Number: SC88039

Handdown Date: 10/16/2006

…The Missouri Constitution expressly guarantees that “all elections shall be free and open; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.” Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 25. Additionally, rather than leaving the issue of voter qualification to the legislature, the Missouri Constitution has established an exclusive list of qualifications necessary to vote in Missouri. Mo. Const. art. VIII, sec. 2 (“All citizens of the United States . . . over the age of eighteen who are residents of this state and of the political subdivision in which they offer to vote are entitled to vote at all elections by the people, if . . . they are registered within the time prescribed by law”). These constitutional provisions establish with unmistakable clarity that the right to vote is fundamental to Missouri citizens.(FN15)

The express constitutional protection of the right to vote differentiates the Missouri
constitution from its federal counterpart. Federal courts also have consistently held that the right to vote is equally fundamental under the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964) (“The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society”); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1964) (“No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live”). But, the right to vote in state elections is conferred under federal law only by implication, not by express guarantee. See Harper v. Virginia State Bd. Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“the right to vote in state elections is nowhere expressly mentioned” in the United States Constitution).

Moreover, the qualifications for voting under the federal system are left to legislative determination, not constitutionally enshrined, as they are in Missouri. Compare U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 2 (providing that “Electors” shall be equivalent to those for state positions) with Mo. Const. art. VIII, sec. 2 (establishing exclusive qualifications for voting in Missouri).(FN16) Compare also U.S. Const. amend. XV (protecting right to vote from abridgment “on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude”) with Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 25 (protecting right to vote from all “power, civil or military” that “interferes to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage”).

Due to the more expansive and concrete protections of the right to vote under the Missouri Constitution, voting rights are an area where our state constitution provides greater protection than its federal counterpart. See California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1013-14 (“It is elementary that States are free to provide greater protections . . . than the [f]ederal Constitution requires.”); State v. Rushing, 935 S.W.2d 30, 34 (Mo. banc 1996) (“Provisions of our state constitution may be construed to provide more expansive protections than comparable federal constitutional provisions.”); State ex rel. J.D.S. v. Edwards, 574 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Mo. banc 1978) (holding that Missouri Constitution due process and equal protection clauses provide more protection than United States Constitution where United States Supreme Court precedent “dilute[s] these important rights”).(FN17)

Of course, some regulation of the voting process is necessary to protect the right to vote itself. Such regulations are in place in all state and federal elections, and the Missouri Constitution further specifically delegates to the legislature the right to regulate registration. Mo. Const. art. VIII, sec. 5. In addition, many matters may tangentially affect voting, such as rules regarding who may run for office and how candidates are listed on ballots. For this reason, the extent of the burden this statute imposes on the right to vote must be evaluated before determining the level of scrutiny it will receive…

[emphasis added]

Can’t have those elderly voters expressing their disdain for the republican agenda, can we?

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that our media isn’t talking about McSame’s inability to seal the deal with a significant number republican voters in the republican presidential primaries?

For instance, last night in Indiana:

McCain 317,837 77%

Huckabee 41,018 10%

Paul 31,481 8%

Romney 19,480 5%

tiny URL

That’s 23% of the voters casting their ballot for someone else.

Then there’s North Carolina:

McCain 381,138 73%

Huckabee 62,917 12%

Paul 40,275 8%

No Preference 20,305 4%

tiny URL

“No preference” did quite nicely, especially since they didn’t spend any money.

And finally, of recent presidential primaries, there’s Pennsylvania:

McCain 587,210 73%

Paul 128,483 16%

Huckabee 91,430 11%

tiny URL

Wow. Over 200,000 republican primary voters in Pennsylvania didn’t vote for McSame. What’s he going to have to do to get their votes?

Tweety and the other cable network talking heads haven’t brought this up, have they? I wonder. It must not fit their selected narrative.

It’s going to be a long slog to November.