Previously:

Once again, some Meta (August 23, 2014)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r) – in Warrensburg – August 22, 2014 (August 23, 2014)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r) – in Warrensburg – August 22, 2014 – Q and A on farming (August 24, 2014)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held a campaign event in Warrensburg Friday evening. Toward the end of the evening she addressed the seated crowd (about forty-five people) and then took a few questions. Toward the end of the question and answer period:

Question: Vicky, I looked at the last election and I’ve been schooled in what’s been [inaudible] and it’s just so obvious that the election was stolen from us last time. How do we combat that? How do we, how do we deal with voter fraud and still get Republicans in office?

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): You think, uh, stolen as in presidential level, national level [crosstalk] or statewide?

Question: [inaudible] When, when there was a precinct that voted for, uh, a hundred and twenty-five percent of the precinct voted to, for Obama and zero for Romney in the last presidential election. Well, there’s something stinking about that.

Representative Hartzler (r): You know, I, I think, uh, we need to focus on making sure our statewide Secretary of State elections, when we focus on ’em, there is, there’s been some, um, Democrats over the past years that have focused on trying to get, uh, target and get their people in Secretary of States and that’s some position maybe sometimes doesn’t get as much attention as it should. But, they’re the chief election officer of each state. And it, uh, I, I’m not saying that the others aren’t doing it, but it, we need to make sure we put people in there that, you know, ensure a fair election. We feel confident in that. I, I think that’d be a good place to start. Is every time there’s somebody’s up for Secretary of State making sure that there’s somebody we trust and, uh, but, I, I don’t know what else, you know.

Second Question: There were a number of people over at the university they were trying to get students to sign, sign on for the petition so that they could increase the election from one day to two weeks or four weeks.

Representative Hartzler (r): Right.

Second Question: And like they were just having people, they just need enough signatures or live bodies that are eighteen years old. And so, people didn’t know.  I said, well, I’d have to think about it then I thought about it and I went back and asked them again. I said, well, I think that would cause quite a bit of voter fraud. And one of them said, oh there’s never been a case of voter fraud in Missouri. [laughter] I said, well, I said, then that’s my, my argument right there, why would you ever want to change it, make it two weeks. You know, people voting for two week, I mean, it would be very costly and it would be ridiculously hard to, you know, say who’s the person voting [inaudible], who voted…

[….]

[The conversation included the Johnson County Clerk who described the process of checking voter databases for “snow birds” who might register in two states – people who resided in warmer parts of the country for half of the year.]

Third Question: Vicky, what’s the level of support in the House for voter ID?

Representative Hartzler (r):  Well, I think there’s, [crosstalk] I think, I think there’s a lot of support.

[….]

“…it’s just so obvious that the election was stolen from us last time…”

Think about that for a minute. That’s from the republican base.

“…they just need enough signatures or live bodies that are eighteen years old…”

Think about that. To sign a petition you must be a registered voter. Since when is it an affront to Democracy for any voter to sign any petition? Just asking.

Did you catch the shift from discussing hypothetical voter fraud abetted by eighteen year olds signing petitions to checking on “snow birds” who reside in warm weather states six months of the year? Correct me if you think I’m wrong, but “snow birds” tend to be a much older demographic and are generally more well off than those who don’t travel to follow the warm weather. Who might they vote for? Just asking.

And then think about the implementation of voter ID to address the non-existent plague of voter impersonation fraud at the polls.

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

News21, “a cornerstone of the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education” funded by The Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation recently released an investigative project on changes in election laws and voting rights:

Exhaustive Search Finds Little Voter Fraud

Despite the push for strict voter ID laws in a charged partisan and racial debate, the most exhaustive study ever of American election fraud reveals the rate is infinitesmal. Since 2000, a time when 146 million Americans were registered to vote, News21 found 10 cases of in-person voter fraud, which only photo ID laws would prevent. That would be about one case for every 15 million eligible voters.

[….]

Bad things happen when good people vote (June 17, 2014)

[….]

Missouri GOP: If Polls Are Open Too Long, Voters Will Commit Fraud

The state’s Republicans are advancing a measure to expand early voting, but Democrats say that’s not the whole story.

-By Dana Liebelson

Tue Jun. 17, 2014 6:00 AM EDT

….In early May, after hundreds of volunteers collected signatures in church basements and break rooms, citizens delivered a petition with more than 300,000 signatures to Missouri’s secretary of state, whose office has until August to verify the signatures and decide whether to place the measure on the November ballot. But Missouri Republicans won’t let that happen without a fight.

On April 1, a couple months after the petition drive had begun, Rep. Tony Dugger (R-Hartville) sponsored a competing measure. In May, the GOP-led House passed a version of the bill that expands early voting by six days-excluding the weekend-to a limited number of polling places, while also prohibiting same-day voter registration. If the citizens’ initiative is approved, both measures will appear on the ballot in November. “The testimony in the Legislature in favor of the sham early voting bill was actually testimony against early voting,” says Lara Granich, the director of Missouri Jobs With Justice. “That makes the real motivation behind it clear. They want it to be more difficult for folks to vote….”

[….]

It’s all about suppressing voter turnout as an article of republican faith.  

Missouri Republican politicians put the squeeze on middle class and working taxpayers all the time – just consider their reckless tax cut for the rich, a taxcut that will decimate Missouri’s coffers with little benefit for the ordinary Joe. They’re willing to risk tax dollars any old day when it comes to serving their rich patrons or pandering to their base – here you can reflect on the potential costly court cases that will result if Brian Nieves’ gun law nullification bill manages to squeak through. Or think about the beaucoup bucks that will be spent paying for ID cards and other nonsense if Republicans manage to get their way about voter ID – money spent to solve an imaginary problem (although the actual problem Republicans hope to address – voting Democrats – may not be so imaginary).  

By far the worst example of such waste can be found in the GOP’s to-the-death opposition to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. You know that by refusing to expand Medicaid they’re not only depriving poor Missourians of health insurance that will, for many, be a matter of life and death, but they’re depriving the state of billions in federal Medicaid support. You also know that failing to expand Medicaid will cost the state many potential new jobs in the health sector. Hospitals will also bear the cost of the GOP Obamacare tantrum when they have to continue to treat the uninsured who don’t qualify for either Missouri Medicaid or the Obamacare exchanges in their emergency room, but with considerably smaller federal subsidies to do so. Many might actually be forced to close.

But these costs are all old news. There’s yet another potential strain on the state budget, if Republicans remain obdurate. Obamacare’s coverage mandate along with the publicity about insurance coverage has led many previously uninsured people who are eligible for Medicaid to sign up for coverage, people that Wonkblog’s Jason Millman identifies as “woodwork enrollees,” as in folks coming out of the woodwork. So how does this potentially strain Missouri’s budget? Here’s how:

From a state budget perspective, there’s an important difference between the woodwork population and those newly eligible under the Medicaid expansion. Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government pays 100 percent of the costs for the Medicaid expansion population through the end of 2016, with the state share gradually increasing to no more than 10 percent. New woodwork enrollees are funded under the traditional Medicaid structure, in which the federal government on average pays 57 percent of the cost – though the federal share varies by state.

In Missouri the actual percentage paid by the state is 64% so the cost will be higher than average, although Millman speculates that fewer folks may come forward in states that don’t have their own exchanges since there’s been less healthcare outreach push to enroll the citizens of in those states. Millman goes on to say that:    

States knew the woodwork effect was coming and had time to prepare for it, since the ACA was passed more than four years ago. The big question is just how accurately were they able to predict its impact.

Except, of course, states like Missouri which is run by Republicans equipped with ideological and partisan blinders. It’s doubtful whether our feckless leaders could manage to plan their way out of a paper bag, much less plan for increased Medicaid enrollment – especially without the increased federal subsidy. These are, after all, the tax-cutting imbeciles who ignored all the contrary evidence and cost the state budget somewhere between $600 to 800 million dollars and $4.8 billion dollars yearly, depending on who you believe.  

Yesterday Missouri’s GOP engineered the passage of a draconian tax cut for wealthy Missourians. The justification? To promote growth.

Today the Los Angeles Times cites new research from the University of Wisconsin that radical taxcutting and similar “pro-business policies don’t really contribute to economic growth. They just make the rich richer, which is not the same thing at all.” Read the details here and weep. Of course, if you’re ready for the unabridged version, you can always purchase a copy of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century and get the same message with massively more data to support the conclusions.

Two voter ID bills introduced in the Missouri House, HB1073 and HJR47, designed by Republicans to limit voting access by Democratic leaning citizens, have advanced to the Senate where Republicans, who are all hot and bothered by non-existent voter fraud, are very likely to send them on to the Governor for what is just as likely to be another veto.

However, as Henry Waters III notes in the Columbia Tribune, judges in Arkansas, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have found similar voter ID laws unconstitutional on the grounds that “Photo ID laws are an interference with voters’ rights not warranted as protection against voter fraud.” Doesn’t deter our lawmakers from pressing on though. Missouri may be the show-me state, but it’s awful hard to show folks something if they aren’t capable of drawing the right conclusions from the display.

Both the Missouri House and Senate have okayed similar legislation that attempts to nullify federal gun laws (but only, as Brian Nieves insists, the unconstitutional laws), punish federal agents that attempt to enforce those laws, and permit open carry – even in jurisdictions that want to prohibit the open display of guns by armed yahoos.

Guess what? Sane folks know that state lawmakers don’t get to decide which federal laws are unconstitutional and if the final bill survives a guaranteed veto by the Governor, it’ll head straight for the courts – and cost Missouri a bundle in the process. In the District Of Columbia v. Heller decision of 2008, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the 2nd amendment permits the regulation of firearms – a point articulated by even the über conservative activist judge, Antonin Scalia . On a more immediate level, the mayors of St. Louis and Kansas City are concerned about the potential of this law to endanger cooperative federal and state task forces working to combat gang and gun violence. As for open carry, apart from the disrespect the law shows for local self-determination, the oft-stated rationale, that more guns means less crime, has been shown to be essentially false.

Have you noticed a pattern here?  The Republicans who mostly run our state spend lots of time legislating from perspectives that can’t stand the the test of fact-based reality. The result? Counter-productive, costly, and even unconstitutional laws that have the potential to seriously harm Missourians, destabilize our civic and social life, and debase our democratic institutions. The folks who stand to gain? Members of the state’s oligarchy with money to burn and the politicians who want to help them burn it. Each of the examples above either constitutes a direct giveaway to Republican political patrons, or are useful in either directly (voter ID) or indirectly (pandering to gun-related paranoia) securing Republican power. We’re governed by power-mad, corrupt (what happened to those ethics bills?) fantasists. As a result we’re left to cope with what promises to be a consistently deteriorating reality.  

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)

Last night, via Twitter:

Rep. Stacey Newman ‏@staceynewman

Expect Fireworks in MO House Tues. Rep Stanley Cox/ his Voter ID const amendment. No fraud/No reason to take voter rights away. #moleg 10:58 PM – 24 Feb 2014

HJR 47 will suppress the vote of qualified voters in Missouri who tend to vote for the current minority party in the General Assembly. Ah, yes, for the republican veto proof majority that would be a feature, not a bug.

Previously:

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)

Previously:

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)

Welcome to Rep. Shane Schoeller’s (r) world… (March 7, 2012)

Rep. Shane Schoeller (r): reading comprehension isn’t a strong point (January 12, 2012)

Rep. Jason Kander (D) in Higginsville (January 10, 2011)

An op-ed in today’s Columbia Daily Tribune by Secretary of State Jason Kander (D):

Voter ID is a false crusade

Impersonation fraud imaginary.

By JASON KANDER

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Nearly every year during the past decade, the Missouri General Assembly has tried to pass, or has passed, a strict voter photo identification requirement. And every year, the legislation either gets stopped somewhere in the legislative process or a court rules it unconstitutional….

….this yearly crusade can’t actually be about voter impersonation fraud because everyone agrees Missouri hasn’t had a case of it….

….Trying to stop 220,000 eligible Missourians from voting doesn’t protect our democracy, but it weakens the integrity of our elections.

And that’s exactly what it’s all about – suppressing the vote of an eligible constituency which doesn’t tend to vote for republicans.

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.  

   

“….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.

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?

News21, “a cornerstone of the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education” funded by The Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation recently released an investigative project on changes in election laws and voting rights:

Exhaustive Search Finds Little Voter Fraud

Despite the push for strict voter ID laws in a charged partisan and racial debate, the most exhaustive study ever of American election fraud reveals the rate is infinitesmal. Since 2000, a time when 146 million Americans were registered to vote, News21 found 10 cases of in-person voter fraud, which only photo ID laws would prevent. That would be about one case for every 15 million eligible voters.

Remember these exchanges involving Shane Schoeller (r), Jason Kander (D) (both now their respective party’s candidate for Secretary of State) and Show Me Progress?:

Rep. Jason Kander (D) in Higginsville (January 10, 2012)

….I’ve served on the Missouri Veterans Commission. I’ve been to a lot of veterans homes where you go in and you’ll talk to a veteran and you’ll find out that this is a person who was in Normandy. But, they haven’t driven in a long time, they don’t have a license. I think that if you were at, on the beach at Normandy you’ve earned the right to vote.  I don’t think we should put the [inaudible] that right….

Rep. Shane Schoeller (r): reading comprehension isn’t a strong point (January 12, 2012)

“….It is imperative that we protect your vote and work to halt voter fraud. By requiring that a photo identification be presented helps us promote the integrity of our election process…..”

Welcome to Rep. Shane Schoeller’s (r) world… (March 7, 2012)

…where veterans can’t vote.

[….]

“…I think that if you were at, on the beach at Normandy you’ve earned the right to vote. …”

Apparently not in Ohio and in other states where republicans want to suppress voter turnout.

[….]

Here it is. The number of voter impersonation fraud cases documented in Missouri since 2000 is exactly zero:

Missouri has 17 cases of alleged election fraud since 2000. By category, Third Party Organizations had the highest percentage of accused at 88 percent (15 cases), followed by Voter at 12 percent (2 cases). The most prevalent fraud was Registration Fraud at 88 percent (15 cases). The status of most cases was Pleaded at 71 percent (12 cases). Responses to requests for public records varied from state to state. Some state and local officials were quick to respond by sending available records; others failed to provide a single document.

Proposing legislation to take care of a nonexistent problem in Missouri? That doesn’t sound very conservative:

Flurry of Photo ID Laws Tied to Conservative Washington Group

By Ethan Magoc | News21

Published Aug. 2, 2012, 10:48 a.m.

A growing number of conservative Republican state legislators worked fervently during the past two years to enact laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Lawmakers proposed 62 photo ID bills in 37 states in the 2011 and 2012 sessions, with multiple bills introduced in some states. Ten states have passed strict photo ID laws since 2008, though several may not be in effect in November because of legal challenges.

A News21 analysis found that more than half of the 62 bills were sponsored by members or conference attendees of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Washington, D.C.-based, tax-exempt organization….

The goal for the right wingnuts, absent any other rational basis for this legislation, is to suppress the vote of their opposition’s traditional constituencies.

Shane Schoeller (r) is a partisan hack who evidently thinks almost everyone else in the State of Missouri is stupid. He doesn’t deserve to hold public office.