• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: voter suppression

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Rule of Law, meh…

22 Saturday Feb 2020

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jay Ashcroft, missouri, Secretary of State, voter ID, voter suppression

“…I don’t care what the Supreme Court says…”

Voter suppression.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r) [2019 file photo].

Last night, in Springfield.

With promise to revive voter ID, Ashcroft announces 2020 re-election bid
[….]

Ashcroft’s vow comes a month after the Missouri Supreme Court struck down the law, which required people with non-photo IDs such election cards or bank statements to swear they were who they said they were before voting.

The court said the scheme was “misleading,” “contradictory” and unconstitutional.

But Ashcroft hasn’t given up.

[….]

“I don’t care what the Supreme Court says,” he said. “You all should make the decision, the people of the state.”

It’s not clear it will work. High court judges considered an idea similar to what the bill proposes and called it “nonsensical” last month.

[….]

Such respect for the rule of law. It runs in the family.

Previously:

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

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

Jay Ashcroft’s (r) voter photo ID tour – Warrensburg – June 16, 2017 (June 16, 2017)

HJR 99, HB 1811, and HB 1600: afraid of voters

14 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

election, General Assembly, HB 1600, HB 1811, HJR 99, John Simmons, missouri, voter suppression, voting

Introduced today by Representative John Simmons (r):

HJR 99
Proposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit selecting electors for the President of the United States based on the national popular vote
Sponsor: Simmons, John (109)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2020
LR Number: 3107H.01I
Last Action: 01/14/2020 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HJR 99
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

There are 2,868,691‬ reasons [pdf] for that one, eh?

And, earlier:

HB 1811
Modifies provisions for initiative petitions and referendums
Sponsor: Simmons, John (109)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2020
LR Number: 3186H.01I
Last Action: 01/09/2020 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1811
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The summary [pdf]:

HB 1811 — PETITION REGULATIONS
SPONSOR: Simmons

This bill changes the format of signature sheets and requires the Secretary of State to make petition sheets available in an electronic format for printing and circulation. There is a $500 filing fee for each initiative or referendum petition sample sheet with an additional $25 fee per page of text in excess of two pages. The fee is refundable if the petition is approved for circulation. This bill changes the maximum number of words that the official summary statement can contain from 50 to 150 words and requires signatures on petitions to be in black or blue ink. Initiative petitions may not invalidate or modify federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, or court decisions, amend federal or constitutional provisions, or accomplish any act delegated to the General Assembly under the Constitution of the United States. This bill changes the “Publications Fund” to the “Secretary of State’s Petition Publications Fund”. The procedure for counting or evaluating signatures are specified in the bill. The bill specifies that any court ordered changes to a ballot title results in the invalidation of signatures collected prior to the order. This bill is similar to HB 290 (2019).

“…any court ordered changes to a ballot title results in the invalidation of signatures collected prior to the order…”

Convenient. Have enough money and don’t like an initiative petition with a lot of popular support? Just sue to change the ballot title.

And:

HB 1600
Modifies several provisions relating elections
Sponsor: Simmons, John (109)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2020
LR Number: 3088H.01I
Last Action: 01/09/2020 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1600
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The summary:

HB 1600 — ELECTIONS SPONSOR: Simmons This bill modifies election laws. In its main provisions the bill: (1) Requires candidates filing their declaration of candidacy with the Secretary of State to pay their fee to the treasurer of the appropriate political party committee; (2) Requires persons voting in person by use of an absentee ballot to establish their identity under Section 115.427, RSMo; (3) Allows voters without personal identification at a polling place to vote a provisional ballot which will be counted based upon a certification process and the return of documentation or by a signature verification process conducted by the election authority; (4) Repeals certain affidavit and notice requirements under Section 115.427; and (5) Authorizes the Missouri Secretary of State to subpoena specified records for the purpose of investigating all classifications of election offenses and other specified offenses, but terminates such authority after August 28, 2025.

§ 115.427 RSMo:

Personal identification, requirements–statement for voters without required personal identification, procedure–provisional ballot, when–form of statement–notice of requirements–report–precinct register requirements–mark in lieu of signature, when–contingent effective date. —

1. Persons seeking to vote in a public election shall establish their identity and eligibility to vote at the polling place by presenting a form of personal identification to election officials. No form of personal identification other than the forms listed in this section shall be accepted to establish a voter’s qualifications to vote. Forms of personal identification that satisfy the requirements of this section are any one of the following:
  (1) Nonexpired Missouri driver’s license;
  (2) Nonexpired or nonexpiring Missouri nondriver’s license;
  (3) A document that satisfies all of the following requirements:
  (a) The document contains the name of the individual to whom the document was issued, and the name substantially conforms to the most recent signature in the individual’s voter registration record;
  (b) The document shows a photograph of the individual;
  (c) The document includes an expiration date, and the document is not expired, or, if expired, the document expired after the date of the most recent general election; and
  (d) The document was issued by the United States or the state of Missouri; or
  (4) Any identification containing a photograph of the individual which is issued by the Missouri National Guard, the United States Armed Forces, or the United States Department of Veteran Affairs to a member or former member of the Missouri National Guard or the United States Armed Forces and that is not expired or does not have an expiration date.
  2. (1) An individual who appears at a polling place without a form of personal identification described in subsection 1 of this section and who is otherwise qualified to vote at that polling place may execute a statement, under penalty of perjury, averring that the individual is the person listed in the precinct register; averring that the individual does not possess a form of personal identification described in subsection 1 of this section; acknowledging that the individual is eligible to receive a Missouri nondriver’s license free of charge if desiring it in order to vote; and acknowledging that the individual is required to present a form of personal identification, as described in subsection 1 of this section, in order to vote. Such statement shall be executed and sworn to before the election official receiving the statement. Upon executing such statement, the individual may cast a regular ballot, provided such individual presents one of the following forms of identification:
  (a) Identification issued by the state of Missouri, an agency of the state, or a local election authority of the state;
  (b) Identification issued by the United States government or agency thereof;
  (c) Identification issued by an institution of higher education, including a university, college, vocational and technical school, located within the state of Missouri;
  (d) A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that contains the name and address of the individual;
  (e) Other identification approved by the secretary of state under rules promulgated pursuant to this section.
  (2) For any individual who appears at a polling place without a form of personal identification described in subsection 1 of this section and who is otherwise qualified to vote at that polling place, the election authority may take a picture of such individual and keep it as part of that individual’s voter registration file at the election authority.
  (3) Any individual who chooses not to execute the statement described in subdivision (1) of this subsection may cast a provisional ballot. Such provisional ballot shall be counted, provided that it meets the requirements of subsection 4 of this section.
[….]

Ah, voter suppression. HB 1600 closes the absentee ballot voter ID loophole. Because we know with the uninformed certainty of Donald Trump (r) that voter impersonation fraud is an epidemic…

All filed by Rep. John Simmons (r). Go figure.

Jay Ashcoft hearts Kris Kobach

02 Sunday Jul 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Election Integrity Commission, Jay Ashcroft, Kris Kobach, privacy, voter suppression

This last week the childish vitriol emanating from the White House – and you know I mean the infamous Mika-Joe tweet tantrum – finally just did me in. It struck me that surely nobody, but nobody, outside his crowd of dim-witted sycophants, could take the clown-in-charge seriously, and perhaps we could all just start ignoring him and concentrate on the real threats presented by the usual GOP suspects who are plugging along, doing yeoman duty on behalf of the oligarchy. But no such luck. The problem with venal crazy in high places is that it puts out tendrils and if you’re not careful, it’ll leave its slimy trails all over your own backyard.

In this case the slime trail leads from Trump’s ironically named Election Integrity Commission, which is headed up by noted voter suppression guru, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and, nominally, by Vice-President Mike Pence who, as Governor of Indiana, had his own voter suppression scandals. This commission is ostensibly an outgrowth of Donald Trump’s conviction that he would surely have won the popular vote instead of losing by three million votes were it not for voter fraud – especially voter fraud involving “illegal aliens” illegally voting. However, the commission, given its personnel and the nature of its charge, also provides an excellent tool for furthering GOP voter suppression goals, not an insignificant consideration for a president with a seriously negative approval rating who’s already holding fundraisers for his 2020 presidential run.

It’s interesting that the Election Integrity Commission’s charge is not, as one might expect if it were legitimately concerned with election integrity, to look into the very real possibility that Russia hacked election machines in 2016, but to “to protect and preserve the principle of one person, one vote” – in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that that principle is in any way at risk. In essence, its members will ignore the biggest threat to election integrity that we’ve seen for over a hundred years in order to concentrate on unsupported accusations of domestic voter fraud.

As a first step, the Commission has demanded the voter registration rolls of all 50 states, including full names, address, DOB, military status, criminal history, political party affiliation, voter record from 2006 forward, and the last four Social Security number digits of every voter. Kobach has implied that this information will be used in conjunction with other databases to determine whether or not (1) non-citizens have voted, (2) citizens have voted fraudulently via duplicate registrations; and/or (3) whether there are large numbers of moribund names on the voter rolls – which would not indicate fraud per se, but which could trigger demands for voter roll purges that, incidentally, are one of Kobach’s hallmark voter suppression tricks.

Given Kobach’s past performance, you can be sure that the Commission will likely affirm all three possibilities – he has, after all, notoriously used just this type of data to produce what experts in data analysis describe as spurious results that he has nevertheless used to disenfranchise thousands of voters. According to one analysis, the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, the analytic tool promoted by Kobach to compare voter rolls, “disproportionately threatens solid Democratic constituencies: young, black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters.” His probity is such that he was recently fined a thousand dollars for lying in court about documents concerning voter eligibility requirements.

Which brings us to Missouri and its Secretary of State, Republican Jay Ashcroft, the man charged with safeguarding the state’s voter rolls. While as many as a dozen states have refused to comply with the demand for their voter’s private information – including five deep red states that went heavily for Trump – around twenty have indicated that they will only comply with the demand insofar as they are permitted to do so by their respective state laws – they will only deliver information that is otherwise available to the public. Ashcroft has put Missouri among the latter group. He posted this statement on the Webpage of the Office of the Secretary of State:

For 40 years under Missouri law (Ch. 115.157, RSMo) certain data is publicly available. The commission’s letter asks for ‘publicly-available’ information, which we would share with any person or organization making an open records request. We will protect Missourians’ private information. The laws of each state are different, and in Missouri, some of the data requested by the commission is open to the public. We plan to comply by providing publicly-available information per state law.

The commission’s questions are fair and we will be glad to assist in offering our thoughts on these important matters. I look forward to working with Secretary Kris Kobach and the commission on its findings and offer our support in the collective effort to enhance the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the elections process.

Personally, I’ve got nothing against sharing publicly available data with the commission provided that they pay any charges that other members of the public might be expected to pay. But did you notice how conciliatory Ashcroft’s statement is? Butter wouldn’t melt, as they say.

Of course, as Tony Messenger has ably pointed out, Ashcroft’s friendly response is more than a little hypocritical coming from the representative of a Missouri Republican party that has been throwing hysterical fits about the violation of privacy represented by the federal Real ID requirements and a proposed state-wide opioid database, as well as efforts to make campaign spending a bit more transparent. All well and good, but it strikes me that the real story is the welcoming tenor of Ashcroft’s response along with the fact that, so far at least, I’ve not heard of any anguished squeals coming from the state’s erstwhile fervid GOP defenders of privacy or states’ rights.

Ashcroft certainly is in stark contrast to many other Secretaries of State, even many of those who have also agreed to turn over the pieces of data that are otherwise publicly available. Many have voiced concerns about the security of files that contain sensitive information, as well as propriety of participating in what rather obviously seems to be, in the words of Kentucky’s Alison Grimes, an exercise that is “at best a waste of taxpayer money and at worst an attempt to legitimize voter suppression efforts across the country.”

If you have any doubts abut the goals of the commission, Richard Hassan describes its slap-dash nature:

There is no professional staff, a B-list of token Democrats to give the commission a bipartisan veneer, and the work is being done out of the Executive Office of the President. (Given that Trump is an announced candidate for the next presidential election, he’s hardly a person who can be counted on for a fair and impartial review.)

Most importantly, the commission includes a rogue’s gallery of the country’s worst voter suppressors. Not just Kobach, but former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who was notorious for rejecting Ohio voter registration forms because they were not printed on heavy enough paper. And on Thursday, Trump added Hans von Spakovsky, one of the original leaders of what I termed the Fraudulent Fraud Squad.

And yet our Secretary of State looks forward to collaborating with a panel that all but proclaims it’s intention are anything but election integrity.

Ashcroft’s stance, though, may not really so surprising. He is, after all, a staunch advocate the state’s new Voter ID law which most of us know is no more than a subterfuge meant to depress Democratic voting turnout.  Just consider Ashcroft’s implementation efforts so far if you are still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. It is his job to ensure that Missourians are prepared for the changes in voter requirements which went into effect in June. Significantly, according to an editorial in the Kansas City Star, days before the effective date there was still “much confusion.”

Ashcroft has done little to change that situation and it doesn’t appear likely that his educational campaign will ever rise above the perfunctory. To date, Ashcroft seems to be actively trying to get the word out to as few as possible. He has pooh-pooed the need to allocate adequate funds to send mailers out to educate the public about the new law. Instead he has opted to hold a spate of meetings across the state, often, according some attendees, involving no more than 20-30 people – meetings which are supposed to inform millions of Missourians about a major change in voting requirements. Nor has anyone I’ve talked to been able to tell me if Ashcroft’s informational meetings have involved any effort to target audiences that are most likely to be affected negatively by the new law. Finally, according to reports about the contents of his “informational” meetings, he is so uninterested in alleviating the potential negative effects of the law that he is often unable to answer pertinent questions about how the law will work.

To summarize, Ashcroft has done the bare minimum to educate Missourians about the new law, a law with the potential to disenfranchise many legitimate voters. He has made a quick speaking tour and posted some informational documents on the Webpage of the Secretary of State’s Office. The Head of the Springfield NAACP has noted that “the law and its rollout remains complicated and confusing,” adding that “we also believe the plans for notification for all who may be affected to be insufficient.”

Do any of these facts help you understand why Secretary of State Ashcroft isn’t worried about violating your privacy in this instance? Do you think he might be serving a “bigger,” more partisan, cause? Doesn’t it seem obvious why our Secretary of State is so willing to run in tandem with Kris Kobach’s voter suppression machine?

If you think you know the answers to those questions, and you don’t like what you know, you can always call one Maura Browning, the Communications Director in the Office of the Missouri Secretary of State and register your objections. The number is: (573) 526-0949

Yep, we already knew that

02 Sunday Jul 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Chris Kobach, Donald Trump, Jason Kander, missouri, voter suppression

Jason Kander (D) [2015 file photo].

This morning from Jason Kander (D), via Twitter:

Jason Kander‏ @JasonKander
A bogus commission formed to justify the biggest lie ever told by a sitting President has become a vote suppressing power grab.
[….]
9:59 AM – 2 Jul 2017

There are so many big lies by Donald Trump. Choosing the biggest can be difficult.

Fun with numbers

09 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Election 2016, missouri, republicans, Voter apathy, voter suppression

In an earlier post today I noted in passing that Trump’s victory in Missouri was not exactly a landslide and did not represent a majority of eligible voters in Missouri. I laid out the numbers in a footnote to support my casual assertion to that effect:

Missouri’s had 4,109,936 registered voters as of 2012; only 2,808,605 Missourians voted in 2016 – and of those, only 1,594,511 voted for Trump – 39% of the eligible voters in Missouri delivered the state to Trump.

After I made this observation, I began to think about  what it might signify and a couple of things occurred to me:

  • Everyone takes it as a given that in order to survive the red-wave, Missouri Democrats like Claire McCaskill have to walk down the center line, balancing their few deviations leftwards with genuflections towards the right side of the road. But could this careful political parsing be why so many Missourians are politically disengaged? Could it be that lots of Missourians are staying away from the polls because they don’t want to vote the strict all guns, no gays ticket, but they just don’t see that there’s a real alternative? Or at least an alternative that makes its presence known. Could an overly cautious Claire McCaskill be stifling the voter enthusiasm that might reward a more principled progressive stance?
  • Shouldn’t folks like McCaskill and other state Democrats be dong more to combat voter suppression – especially since it’s poised to take off big-time now that the GOP vote suppression gang is running the state show? How about greeting the voter ID perfecting Jay Ashcroft and Josh Hawlely with a lawsuit?

Numbers tell stories, and the story they tell about Missouri’s voter turnout is one of disengagement and apathy that will only be augmented by the machinations on the part of Missouri’s Republican political establishment to keep Democrats away from the polls. Lest you doubt, there’s ample evidence that the GOP voter fraud concerns are directed at keeping as many Democrats from voting as possible. And that’s bad, but just as bad is if the efforts of Grundy-pandering Democrats to work the political room are having the same effect.

Everybody knows that it’s all about the votes

20 Friday Feb 2015

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

elections, HB30, HJR1, missouri, photo ID, Tony Dugger, voter suppression, voting

I’ve been amused by the not inconsiderable number of individuals who sanctimoniously point out that if people in places like Ferguson, say, don’t like what’s going on in local government, or if they have a problem with the makeup of that government, then all they need to do is trot off to the polls and vote. Take, for instance, this letter printed in a recent edtion of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

You want change? Prove it. Those signs people are carrying that say “Black Lives Matter” should be saying “Black Votes Matter.” Marching in the streets may get some attention short term, but where you can really make a difference is on Election Day by marching into the voting booths and casting a ballot for people who can address your concerns. March into the county Board of Elections and register to vote. March into the town hall meetings, the school board meetings, the state legislature and tell your stories. Because these officials have to know how their actions affect you personally. And if their actions show they aren’t listening, then vote them out. Run for office, get involved, pay attention.

Although I don’t think protests vs. votes is an either/or situation – in this case, we probably need both – the writer is, of course, right on a basic level.  We get the government we deserve. When large majorities of the citizens of Missouri – and I’m not necessarily talking about “those people” singled out by the letter writer above – failed to turn out to vote in 2014, the result has been legislators like those currently in Jefferson City who seem hell-bent on trashing the state as fast as they can.

But there’s a bigger story here than the one about apathetic voters. There are a number of socioeconomic factors that influence whether people vote and how they vote. And it’s this last fact that gets us to a whole other open can of worms. There are those who have noticed that who people are, their race, economic status, gender and age, corresponds to their partisan leanings. Lots of those people are Republican politicians or the people who give them money. The result has been a growing effort to keep the wrong people, who often tend to be “those people,” from voting. And it’s happening right here in Missouri. As Rebecca Rivas at the St. Louis American reports:

Just as many are stepping out of the movie theaters with images of the 1965 March on Selma fresh in their minds, Missouri state legislators are hearing about proposed Voter ID laws.

“On the anniversary of the March on Selma, the fight for voter rights have [sic] been exposed and celebrated,” said state Rep. Stacey Newman (D-87). “But they’ve also taught us that this never ends.”

On Tuesday, January 27, the Missouri House of Representative’s election committee listened to community members and experts testify about two voter identification bills, introduced by state Rep. Tony Dugger (R-141). The bill HB 30 would requires voters to show a “valid government-issued photo ID” at the polls, with some exemptions. Dugger is also proposing the bill HJR 1, which would amend the constitution to require voters to have government-issued photo IDs.

[…]

Voter ID laws have been criticized and found unconstitutional because they disproportionately impact people who don’t often have state-issued IDs – often people of color, people with disabilities, seniors and young voters.

In 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down Missouri’s Voter ID law. According to the court opinion, the Secretary of State’s analysis in August 2006 estimated that approximately 240,000 registered voters in the state may not have the required photo ID.

Rep. Dugger offers a comically unlikely hypothetical concerning possible voter fraud to justify his (likely ALEC inspired) obsession with the photo ID project that he has repeatedly tried to enact:

Missouri’s Voter Rolls are severely inflated due to various reasons,” Dugger said. “There are 15 counties in Missouri with 95% or more of their eligible voters registered to vote,” said Dugger. “One county, Reynolds County, actually has more registered voters than eligible voters. With that problem out there, the potential for fraud is quite prevalent. There is no verifiable way to ensure that a voter voting on Election Day is who they say they are without some sort of a photo ID requirement.”

You really think that some sinister somebody is going to go through the rolls, figure out who doesn’t belong there, and then send ringers to impersonate them? Lots of effort for very little return, I’d say. Photo IDs only prevent this type of in-person voter fraud, and as reported in The Washington Post:

A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.

But Photo ID laws do pose an often insurmountable barrier to voting:

Since 2008, states across the country passed measures to make it harder for Americans – particularly African-Americans, the elderly, students and people with disabilities – to exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot. Over thirty states considered laws that would require voters to present government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Studies suggest that up to 11 percent of American citizens lack such ID, and would be required to navigate the administrative burdens to obtain it or forego the right to vote entirely.

The irony should not be lost on anyone that we are hearing so many disapproving sounds about the failure of “those people” in Ferguson to turn out and vote rather than rampaging in the street, while at the same time our GOP lawmakers are trying their hardest to keep them from the polls.

Image

Where’s the Ethics?

05 Wednesday Mar 2014

Tags

campaign ethics, Gun Legislation, impeachment, medical malpractice cap, Missouri GOP, Missouri Legislative Session, Missouri Legislature, Missouri Republican Party, Right to work, school transfer, voter identification, voter suppression

Posted by Michael Bersin | Filed under Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Why do Republicans hate democracy?

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

democracy vs. republic, Federalist 10, James Madison, majority rule, missouri, SB511, SJR32, voter ID, voter suppression

Once again Missouri Republicans are out to limit the franchise so that only the “right” types of people cast their votes. Of course, that’s not what GOPers are saying. To hear them tell it, they’re pushing SB511 and its companion, SJR31,  the latest iterations of the annual GOP voter suppression bills, to ward off the threat of massive voter fraud that exists only in the overheated imaginations of the more gullible souls on the right. If you doubt me, you can check out the nature of the complaints sent to the Secretary of State concerning voting irregularities in Missouri. The actual consequence of the ID laws, according to Secretary of State Jason Kander,  is that 220,00 Missourians could be disenfranchised if these measures are enacted:

Among the hundreds of thousands of eligible Missouri voters that could be kept from voting by SJR31 & SB511 are students with current school-issued photo ID’s, senior citizens who no longer drive, Missourians who rely on public transportation, and women who have changed their last names due to marriage or divorce.

“This is not just a simple identification requirement,” Kander said. “This is essentially ‘REAL ID’ all over again, as the legislature wants everyone in our state to be required to have a certain kind of identification. …

This is not the only sin against democratic government that Missouri Republicans have committed in the recent past: Remember Prop. B, the popularly approved puppy-mill initiative that the legislature decided to dismantle just because they could? And Prop. B was just the latest winning ballot initiative to be treated in a cavalier fashion by a predominantly Republican legislature. Nor is this discomfort with the consequences of democracy limited to Missouri Republicans. State and federal GOPers are united in their in opposition to numerous positions supported by a majority of Americans such as minimum wage increases, extending unemployment benefits, ending workplace discrimination against LGBT people. Heck, most Americans want Republicans to stop the repeal Obamacare charade they’ve been playing at and get down to the brass tacks of making the law better – or, at the very least, doing something constructive with their time.

If all of this evidence leads you to conclude that the “we the people” contingent has a very narrow conception of just who comprises the “we” in that formulation, you wouldn’t be alone. The disdain for the popular will shown by the folks who precipitated the last government shutdown, for instance, led  former Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons to declare:

…  there’s a “new breed of politician. A lot of the highly conservative element that’s come in … are actually anti-democratic. The will of the people, … which is a founding principle of this country, is no longer relevant,” …

This conservative anti-democratic bias isn’t new. It can be traced to a dispute that has deep roots in American political life, one side of which is elaborated in James Madison’s Federalist no. 10, often read as an argument for limiting democracy by moderating the ability of “faction,” i.e., partisan politics, to affect the established interests of the elite. Though this document is treated as ultimately authoritative by many conservatives, it was considered aberrant by many of Madison’s contemporaries. That fact hasn’t stopped conservatives though. Although many on the political right argue exclusively from authority, they also frequently exhibit a strong proclivity to pick and choose among various potential authorities when they attempt to interpret the Constitution’s true meaning.

It’s instructive to do a google search on the phrase “republic vs. democracy.” I warn you that you’ll come upon some examples of incredibly tortured logic, simplistic and often wrong-headed definition, and linguistic confusion. One writer actually suggests that the difference resides in the fact that in a republic, after a vote is taken, the members of the minority may go along with the majority result or not based on the individual’s personal preference. Others, such as the dominionist Christian Wallbuilders, define a republic as rule by law which should not be based on the “rapidly fluctuating feelings and emotions of the people,” as in a democracy, but rather on Christian biblical principles to which elected or appointed representatives must defer. In general, though Federalist no. 10 is the usual starting point, the tenor is similar to that of medieval academics reverently distilling received authority into arcane arguments – with the distinction that most of the medieval thinkers were much less tendentious and had a head for nuance, something that seems to muddle modern conservatives.

Somewhat saner writers begin with Madison’s conception of a classical democracy where citizens vote directly for every issue – although citizenship itself may be restricted. They argue that our Constitution envisions instead a representative Republic, where an elected political elite makes the decisions. Of course, the ideas have merged over the years and most of us would agree that the United States is a representative democracy, with a bill of rights to protect minorities. This merger has been incorporated into the Constitution and informs most Americans’ conception of our government; as Peter Levine observes:

… the 15th, 17th, 19th, and 24th amendments to the Constitution, the state constitutions, two centuries of legislation, and Lincoln’s interpretation of the Civil War as a struggle for government “by the people” have made us a representative government on the basis of one person/one vote, which is a reasonable definition of a democracy.

For all practical purposes, the distinction between the two terms has become meaningless for reasonable people. For those, however, who have an axe to grind with the direction democracy is taking in the U.S., it provides a shield to deflect criticism when they seek to obstruct the common will. Conservative interpreters of Federalist no. 10 still view the Constitution as a document that limits the power of majorities, and they deny the validity of changes that have moderated aspects of 18th century elitism in the document – changes which they often seek to eradicate. Most of us have seen the lists of Constitutional Amendments that Tea Partiers would like to do away with, most recently the 17th amendment that provides for direct election of senators.  

Within this context, suppressing and limiting the franchise, drawing voting districts  to ensure political hegemony (gerrymandering), and enabling monied interests to essentially buy elections, are acceptable because they are meant to ensure the election of elite representatives who will moderate the enthusiasms of the democratic “mob.” The distinction between “republic” and “democracy” supports a system, embraced by the Republican party, that works fine for folks like the Koch brothers and Missouri’s Rex Sinquefield, and when it’s threatened, it’s not surprising that you hear the squealing of little piggies like billionaire Tom Perkins, who last week warned his fellows that progressives were even now preparing the tumbrils to cart the 1% off to the guillotine.  

   

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

09 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

General Assembly, HJR 47, Jason Kander, Melissa Harris-Perry, missouri, MSNBC, Secretary of State, voter ID, voter suppression

“….it’s pretty simple, the, uh, bill is so blatantly unconstitutional that even the sponsors concede that the only way for it to ever take legal effect is to change our constitution….”

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS


Section 25

Elections and right of suffrage.

Section 25. 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.

   Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 9.

[emphasis in original]

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, if the election is one for which registration is required if they are registered within the time prescribed by law, or if the election is one for which registration is not required, if they have been residents of the political subdivision in which they offer to vote for thirty days next preceding the election for which they offer to vote: Provided however, no person who has a guardian of his or her estate or person by reason of mental incapacity, appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction and no person who is involuntarily confined in a mental institution pursuant to an adjudication of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be entitled to vote, and persons convicted of felony, or crime connected with the exercise of the right of suffrage may be excluded by law from voting.

   Source: Const. of 1875, Art. VIII, § 2 (as amended November 4, 1958).

   (Amended November 5, 1974)

[emphasis in original]

Think about that.

Yesterday Secretary of State Jason Kander (D) spoke on the Melissa Harris-Perry show against republican voter suppression efforts through voter ID legislation pending in the Missouri General Assembly:

http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_mhp_6mo_140208

The transcript:

Melissa Harris-Perry: Missouri republicans are ready to give the Show Me State motto a whole new meaning by introducing a requirement for showing voter ID.The Republican controlled state legislature recently held a hearing on a bill that would put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot this November which, if approved by voters, would allow for a voter ID law. The law would require Missouri voters to show state or federal government issued identification in order to cast a ballot. Military IDs would count. Student IDs would not. Missouri’s state Supreme Court, back in two thousand six, struck down a voter ID law and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to revive it two thousand eight. But at the end of January the Washington Post reported that Missouri Republicans believe they’ve fixed the objectionable provisions by allowing residents without proper identification to receive the new IDs they’ll need without cost. Still, Missouri’s Secretary of State says the bill could keep hundreds of thousands of current Missouri residents from voting. Joining me now from Missouri is Jason Kander, the Secretary of State for the Show Me State. Nice to have you with us, Mister Kander.

Secretary of State Jason Jander (D): Great to be with you, thanks so much.                  

Melissa Harris-Perry: Okay, so, given this insistence on this new voter ID provision I assume that there must be a serious problem with voter fraud in your state. can you tell me about what you have encountered as Secretary of State?

Secretary of State Kander: Well, you know, the sponsors of this legislation say that it’s targeted at voter impersonation fraud, which is something that we actually haven’t had in Missouri. Uh, so, you know, this would be the most extreme law in the entire country if it were passed. Two hundred and twenty thousand registered voters, uh, could be disenfranchised. So, in fact, even calling it a photo identification law I think sort of underplays it. It’s really a law that requires a very specific form of identification. So, as you mentioned, student IDs wouldn’t be good enough, the voter identification card you receive in the mail wouldn’t be good enough, an expired driver’s license, and actually, a military ID that has expired, you know, like a lot of veterans, you know, I, I carry my military idea still, like a lot of veterans. It expired in November twenty thirteen. If this law were to pass I wouldn’t be allowed to present it and vote in twenty sixteen. So, you know, a law like that, anything that’s gonna disenfranchise a single eligible voter, that’s something that I’m going to fight against.        

Melissa Harris-Perry: So, Mister Kander, I think that that’s so important the, the clarification you made there because often when I’ve had this conversation with people who support voter ID here at the table they say to me, well, you know, you need an ID to get on a plane and all of those sorts of things. But the notion that, that is in fact quite hard to comply with this law, that it’s not just sort of reasonably demonstrate that you are who you say you are.  

Secretary of State Kander: Right. Well, it makes, the bill, it makes a show of trying to say, well, we’re gonna, we’re gonna get an ID for, ID for you, the state’s gonna pay for it. But it really just makes a show of it. I mean, at the end of the day there’s still underlying documents that cost money, there’s the fact that you have to take off work, spend your time and your money to go stand in line to get an ID. And we’re talking about a constitutional right. So, it’s pretty outrageous. And, you know, you mentioned that, uh, the Republicans in my state like to say that they’ve fixed it. I think you’d find their fix pretty interesting. What it actually is, is we have of all the state constitutions in the country our state has one of the strongest voting rights provisions in a constitution anywhere in the country. So the Republican strategy here is to amend our state constitution, to weaken the voting rights provision and then pass the most extreme version of this kind of law in the entire country. So, it’s pretty simple, the, uh, bill is so blatantly unconstitutional that even the sponsors concede that the only way for it to ever take legal effect [crosstalk] is to change our constitution.  

Melissa Harris-Perry: You know, that, look, let, so let me ask you this, because you as the Secretary of State being out this early in front of this, so you, you haven’t waited until, next week the, the state legislators, state legislators are voting on this, you’re talking at this point about trying to raise some awareness, about a change to a constitution. Why get in front of this so early?        

Secretary of State Kander: Well this is a constitutional right. I mean, it’s incredibly important. You know, as I said, two hundred and twenty thousand registered voters in my state could be disenfranchised by this. Melissa, that’s eight percent, that number is eight percent of the number of people who voted in my state in the twenty-twelve presidential election in Missouri. That is a substantial number. And I’m the chief election official in my state. I have a couple of jobs, you know, that, that go with that. The first is to make sure that only eligible voters vote, but it also is to make sure that the eligible voter has the opportunity to vote. I take both of those really seriously.    

Melissa Harris-Perry: Mister Kander, hold for me for just one moment. Dorian, I want to come out to you on this because it was striking to us that Missouri is now a state that I would be talking about in the context of voter ID law. And when you kind of look at the map of the fifty states you’re just seeing these expansive restrictive voter ID laws spreading. We did have it turned back in Pennsylvania. Uh, you know, both in Texas and North Carolina there that you see in yellow, those are being challenged by the DoJ. But all those states you see in red, these things are in place and, and now Missouri potentially bringing it up, too. What is happening here?

Dorian Warren: So, it, it’s clear, this is not just a southern strategy even though it’s [inaudible] in the south, but it is a strategy of the Republican Party. And if you can’t win by attracting new voters, what’s the alternative? Kick voters out, suppress the vote. And so this is essentially, we’re seeing the ghost of Jim Crow in all of these states come alive again. Republicans are breathing new life into Jim Crow laws, just under a different name. And it’s a strategy because they know they can’t attract new voters, so they have to restrict the entire electorate to try and rig the game to stay in power.          

Melissa Harris-Perry: Yep. Mister Kander, in addition to being out in front of challenging this you’ve also taken proactive steps, things you, uh, folks in Missouri can now register to vote on line. Is that right?

Secretary of State Kander: Yeah, you know, I appreciate you mentioning that. Um, I’ve been in office a year. I’m very proud of our record of, of, you know, really following through on our philosophy of making sure that every eligible voter, uh, should meet more convenience at the polls. I think that that makes sense, that’s why we’re the sixteenth state now to have an online voter registration form. We’re pushing for early voting, uh, we actually for the first time have bipartisan legislation on it. I’m gonna continue to work on that. But again, I just think that my job is to make sure that, uh, there’s more convenience for eligible voters. And, for some reason, there are Republicans in my state and around the country who are very uncomfortable with that. And I don’t really understand that. I think that it’s pretty fundamental.                  

Melissa Harris-Perry: Mister Kander, you’re so eminently reasonable [laughter] you, you [crosstalk]….

Secretary of State Kander: Well, thank you.

Melissa Harris-Perry: ….may not get a lot of play on this cable TV situation. [laughter] Your voice is all moderate and you have all this empirical evidence and such. I, I appreciate you for joining us on MHP Show.

Secretary of State Kander: Hey, thanks very much.

Melissa Harris-Perry: Thanks. Thank you for joining us from St. Louis….      

What the republican controlled House has proposed to change the Missouri Constitution:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 47

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES COX (Sponsor), DUGGER, DOHRMAN, WALKER, ENTLICHER, WILSON, KELLEY (127), ANDERSON, DAVIS, ROWLAND, SWAN, CRAWFORD, MORRIS, HOSKINS, KOLKMEYER, GANNON, BROWN, PFAUTSCH, CROSS, GATSCHENBERGER, LEARA, REDMON, BERNSKOETTER, HURST, WHITE, MCGAUGH, FITZWATER AND LOVE (Co-sponsors).

4459L.01I      D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

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 elections.

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, 2014, 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 10, to read as follows:

           Section 10. A person seeking to vote in person in public elections may be required by general law to identify himself or herself and verify his or her qualifications as a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the state of Missouri by providing election officials with a form of identification, which may include requiring valid government-issued photo identification. Exceptions to the identification requirement may also be provided for by general law.

           Section B. The official ballot title for section A shall read as follows:

           “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that it will be permissible under the Constitution of Missouri for the General Assembly to enact a general law requiring voters to show valid photo identification in order to vote in person at a public election?”.

[emphasis in original]

“….by providing election officials with a form of identification, which may include requiring valid government-issued photo identification….”

“….I mean, at the end of the day there’s still underlying documents that cost money, there’s the fact that you have to take off work, spend your time and your money to go stand in line to get an ID. And we’re talking about a constitutional right. So, it’s pretty outrageous. And, you know, you mentioned that, uh, the Republicans in my state like to say that they’ve fixed it. I think you’d find their fix pretty interesting. What it actually is, is we have of all the state constitutions in the country our state has one of the strongest voting rights provisions in a constitution anywhere in the country. So the Republican strategy here is to amend our state constitution, to weaken the voting rights provision and then pass the most extreme version of this kind of law in the entire country. So, it’s pretty simple, the, uh, bill is so blatantly unconstitutional that even the sponsors concede that the only way for it to ever take legal effect [crosstalk] is to change our constitution….”

Res ipsa loquitur.

Todd Akin comes out against the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965

18 Saturday Aug 2012

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jim Crow, missouri, Todd Akin, voter ID, voter suppression, Voting Rights Act of 1965

Yup. You read that right. Rep. Todd Akin, Missouri GOP Senatorial candidate, proud member of the Grand Old Party of voter suppression, says that the hard won federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, which wiped out decades of discrimination, should probably be revised or overturned.  According to Think Progress and FiredUp Missouri (which has video of the local radio interview in which Akin committed his foot to his mouth), when asked if the legislation should be “modified or scrapped”:

Akin said that states – not the federal government – should set voting rules. According to Akin, elections “have historically always been a state thing” and that’s a “good principle.”

Of course, the law was enacted in order to deal with mostly Southern states that used “literacy” tests and other stratagems to deny African-Americans the right to vote. But, of course, as per Akin, that was their right. One wonders if Akin also thinks they had the right to practice slavery? (He is, as I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, an acolyte of the bizarre historical revisionism of Christian dominionist, David Barton. On his Website, Barton does distinguish several types of acceptable slavery, which he terms “biblical slavery.” Barton would, for instance, consider enslavement of nonbelievers, or pagans, to belong to this class.)

Over and above such arcane questions, Akin’s attitude mirrors those of many in his party and puts the GOP’s current efforts to suppress the voting rights of minorities, the elderly and students in its proper perspective. Bear in mind that under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Acts, some Southern states with a history of discrimination must have changes to their election laws precleared by federal courts. In order to avoid that stipulation, which applies to five of its counties, Florida, in its pursuit of more restrictive voting laws, actually actually filed suit seeking to have Section 5 declared unconstitutional. As of yesterday, a federal court refused to preclear at least one of the four elements of Florida’s new voter law that the Department of Justice found problematic. Given the GOP’s current drive to implement new, state-level Jim Crow laws all over the country, it’s not surprising that “state’s rights” politicians like Akin echo the call to clear the way of impediments like that pesky Voting Rights Act.

If you want to know more about the new Jim Crow, journalist Ari Berman discusses GOP strategies to restrict voting in the video below:

UPDATE:  Watch Todd Akin attempt to extricate his entire lower leg from out of his mouth. The video of Todd’s statements about the Voting Rights Act temporarily disappeared from the St. Louis Fox2Now webpage and reappeared in a slightly more edited form (compare the original with the new video). When the video reappeared, it was accompanied by text that presented what I can only assume is the Akin campaign’s effort at damage control:

Congressman Todd Akin believes that the right to vote is fundamental to our country.  He supports laws that protect these rights and did not say that he was opposed to the ‘civil rights and voting rights’ laws.  Akin has, and always will, support the right to vote.

Of course, nobody said Akin was opposed to the right to vote in general – just that his espousal of radical states rights in this case would destroy or modify federal protections for entire classes of U.S. citizens. It could decimate the system of checks and balances enacted for states and counties with a history of discrimination. And, as the Florida case demonstrates, efforts to impose discriminatory laws are not safely in the past.

One can only wonder if the entire Fox interview, scheduled to run on Sunday, will have been “cleaned-up” as well?

   

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Democratic Party News
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Josh Hawley
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 394,846 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.