Voter suppression efforts in the form of Voter ID bills have had a fraught history in Missouri. To date, Democrats have succeeded in warding off this GOP ploy to make it harder for traditionally Democratic constituencies to vote.

Voter ID has widespread popular support in Missouri, however – it is one of those ideas that sound good until you realize what it entails and, consequently, it often appeals to more casual voters. Which is why it is interesting when Jonathan Chait points out a hole in the GOP Voter ID rhetoric that was opened up by Mitt Romney’s most recent effort to denigrate President Obama – something that we should perhaps file away for later use when the Missouri Voter ID zombie climbs back out of its most recent grave.

Liberal bloggers – like SMP’s Blue Girl – have almost uniformly been scandalized by Mitt’s claims that the Obama administration has filed a lawsuit intended to curtail military voting privileges. The implication is, of course, that the Obama administration is trying to suppress military voting that might, traditionally at least, be expected to tend toward Republicans. Today Politifact took up the Romney camp’s assertion and declared it unequivocally false:

Indeed, Obama’s lawsuit clearly states that it seeks to permit all Ohioans – not just members of the U.S. military –  to vote during the three days before the election, as was the case in 2008. The suit in no way suggests restricting early voting by members of the military.

It is simply dishonest for Romney and his backers to claim that Obama’s effort to extend early voting privileges to everyone in Ohio constitutes an attack on military voters’ ability to cast ballots on the weekend before elections.

So what does Jonathan Chait have to say about this piece of dishonesty that relates to Voter ID? He points out a key element of Romney’s pretend outrage:

Obviously this is your basic political smear, but there’s also a little more going on here. Consider Romney’s justification for longer in-person voting windows for members of the military:

The brave men and women of our military make tremendous sacrifices to protect and defend our freedoms, and we should do everything we can to protect their fundamental right to vote.

If the ability to get to the polls is the “fundamental right to vote,” then why shouldn’t all eligible citizens enjoy that right?

Chait concludes:

If Romney is conceding that voting is a fundamental right rather than a privilege – not all Republicans concede this anymore – and, more importantly, that practical impediments can interfere with that right, then what justification do they have for their wide-ranging campaign to deny the same convenience to other Americans?

Clear enough?

Once again the forces of evil are trying to get themselves reelected. This time those who say they are defenders of our Constitution are stabbing that document in the heart by trying to deny people their right to vote.

Like Jason Voorhees in some bad ‘Friday the Thirteenth” movie, voter ID has been resurrected.  No matter how often the courts and good and decent people shoot it with a silver bullet or put a wooden stake through its heart, it comes back to life.

A few years ago, Missouri passed a voter ID bill which, fortunately, was struck down by the Missouri’s Supreme Court. Let me relate the problems I had with the law before it was overturned.

If you’re an 87 year old woman who has lived in the St. Louis area for your whole life, had a driver’s license for over fifty years, never been a felony, and wants to vote –  Good luck. Especially, for anyone that does not have someone to escort them around.  At least that’s what I found out trying to help my mother in law to get a voter ID card.

I and the rest of the family had the emotional task of moving my in laws from a retirement home to full time care.  Along with the physical move came the administrative nightmare of changing the address, phone number, cable, and insurance. Now, add to that list getting voter ID cards.    

My father in law would be a lesser problem.  I had his birth certificate; and being a man, he has never had a name change. Unfortunately, without her birth certificate, my mother in law would be a challenge.  

I went to the Department of Revenue website to see what I needed to do.  If you were renewing a valid driver’s license, it was clear that there was an exception for needing a birth certificate for those over 75 year old. It was less clear for my mother in law, who hasn’t had a valid license this millennium.  

A call to the DOR, in Jeff City, quickly confirmed her need for a birth certificate.  My request that Governor Blunt go over to Illinois and pick it up for me was met with a chuckle and an “I don’t think so.”  That chuckle turned to laughter as she overheard me mutter, “Only two more years.”

A call to the St. Clair County recorder verified that, yes, indeed my mother in law was born; and for only $11.95, I could confirm it.  I thought I was home free, but then I remembered that the website had said something about other proof being need if there was a name change.  I realized her birth certificate would have a name different than the one she has used for the last 67 years.

Another call to Jeff City established that indeed a marriage certificate was needed. A call to St. Louis County would substantiate that for another $6.00, I could affirm that she was not living in sin.

Now, I am not against jumping through some hoops if there really was a problem in voter fraud, but my feeling is this was just an example of what business school textbooks refer to as management by exception.  An example of management by exception would be a teacher demanding a 1000 word essay on getting to school on time from the entire class just because one particular child is always late.  

The nexus of voter ID law lies in the election of 2000.  The St. Louis Board of Elections sent out a letter to all registered voters who had not voted within the last year warning those not replying would be removed from the voter list.  This resulted in 33,000 names taken off the list.

Lacy Clay, running for his retiring father’s Congressional seat, warned the Board that they had taken thousands of legitimate voters off the list; and if they didn’t allow these people to vote, they would be sued.  The Board did not relent and chaos rained on November 7th.  

Because of that chaos, a federal judge ordered the polls open until 10 PM and to accept votes from anyone that showed up.  The voter’s registration would be verified later.  The next day a firestorm of protest began with Senator Bond’s hysterically, fist pounding, accusatory speech.  The culmination of this outrage is the current voter ID law.

Was there massive voter fraud, or was this new law just management by exception punishing all voters because of the abuse of a few?

Secretary of State Matt Blunt investigated the 2000 election and found that out only 135 people that voted were not registered.  In addition, 14 dead people voted, 86 voted twice and another 1400 votes were in one way or another questionable.  

Those numbers might seem shocking, but put into context the questionable votes were only six hundredths of one percent of the total Missouri vote.  That’s like worrying about 60 cent of a 1000 dollar bill.  All Missourians are now being punished for the misdeeds of an extremely small minority.  This is classic management by exception.

In the rush to correct a flaw that was affecting only a few hundred votes, politicians are disenfranchising ten of thousands of elderly and disabled.  Despite hundreds of thousands of Missourians needing non driving voter ID’s, less than 500 were issued in the first month of the program.  

In a Post Dispatch poll, only 18 percent of Missourians favored voter ID’s.  In the Legislatures’ special session four years ago, legislators need to be repeal or revised the voter ID law so Missourians are ruled by what is best for the majority not by exceptions.

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

Here’s a tip – cutting and pasting a quote out of context may help you with your right wingnut base, but it isn’t going to make you look very good to everyone else.

Via Twitter:

@shaneschoeller Schoeller 4 SoS

Conservative Schoeller Applauds Kander’s Support of Voter ID [….] #MOSOS 3 hours ago

Not so fast.

And also, the press release from Representative Shane Schoeller’s (r) Secretary of State campaign:

Conservative Schoeller Applauds Kander’s Support of Voter ID

Jefferson City, Mo. – Conservative Shane Schoeller today applauded Jason Kander’s public declaration of support for Voter ID legislation. Schoeller recently filed House Bill 1104, which would require photo identification to vote and damper attempts of vote fraud.

Kander, speaking to the Lafayette County Democrats in Higginsville, and reported by showmeprogress.com, said, “Uh, one of the big issues they’ve tried to make, one of the big issues in this in this race is photo ID. My rule is real simple, photo ID, going to vote – if it, if a policy makes it easier to vote and harder to cheat, then I’ll be for it.”

Schoeller welcomes Kander’s support on this issue, “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.”

Schoeller, an outspoken conservative and the Speaker Pro Tem of the Missouri House of Representatives….

Why, they left stuff out. Go figure.

If someone prefaces a statement with:

Representative Jason Kinder (D): ….one of the big issues they’ve tried to make….

[emphasis added]

They’re telling you it’s somebody else’s “big issue”, not theirs. And when they follow that up with a personal story which vividly illustrates a serious problem with somebody else’s “big issue” they’re not endorsing it.

….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….

You see, requiring a veteran to jump through hoops does not qualify as “makes it easier to vote.”

For the individual this would be called reading comprehension. For the twenty something campaign gofer on wingnut welfare, the right wingnut candidate, our old media, and anyone else, it’s also called “context”.

On the up side, who’d have thought that Representative Shane Shoeller (r) reads Show Me Progress? Maybe if he keeps at it he might learn something. You know, like elderly people and veterans would really like to be able to vote in our elections without having a corporatist right wingnut front group‘s spam legislation [pdf] make it impossible for them to do so.

Think about that.  

Rep. Stacey Newman (D-HD 73) heads the Progressive Caucus in the Missouri House. Speaking at the Missouri Progressive Action Group’s October meeting, Newman laid out the Voter ID situation. ALEC has proposed these voter suppression laws in–count ’em!–34 states. But Newman says that we were the first. In 2006, Missouri Republicans passed a law requiring voters to present a photo ID at the polls. They suffered a setback when the state supreme court ruled the law unconstitutional, but all that did was determine them to change the constitution. That’s what they aim to do on the 2012 ballot. There are still two or three legal scuffles going on, with left wing activists charging that the proposed language is unacceptable. If those don’t stop the ballot initiatives, then the matter will be on the ballot next year.

During this year’s legislative session, though, the matter arose. Republicans were trying to pass, in advance of the ballot success they’re hoping for next year, enabling legislation. That’s because, even if the constitution allows for a photo ID requirement, there has to be a law spelling out how the system will operate.

Democrats were able to stop that legislation through the veto process. Republicans need four Democratic votes in the current House membership to override a gubernatorial veto. And the Democrats stood strong. But be sure that Republicans will try to pass enabling legislation again next spring.

The hypocrisy of Rs in trying to enact this new “poll tax”, which will fall mostly on Democratic voters, is twofold. First, in the current budget crunch, they’ll have to come up with $20 million over three years to fund the program. If they fail to appropriate the money, then county clerks will have to find the funds. And we all know how well local entities are doing in the today’s recession, right? So the party that screams that government ought to spend less might well shove the expense onto already crippled local governments, and all this will be in order to stop … a problem that isn’t. There is no voter impersonation fraud. There hasn’t been A. Single. Case. in Missouri of someone showing up at the polls pretending to be someone he’s not in order to vote. Not one case.

Twenty million to solve that problem, huh? No, twenty million to silence some of those Democratic voters.

What I just wrote is the quick and dirty summary of what Newman had to say. The full account is here:

Previously: Am I still shrill? (July 6, 2011)

“…The summary statement here is insufficient and unfair because it deceives and misleads voters about what the Proposed Constitutional Amendment would do, and would not do, and, thus, is neither true nor impartial, but instead likely to create prejudice for the proposed measure…”

Civil Rights Groups Sue Missouri Officials Over “Deceptive and Misleading” Voter ID Ballot Initiative

ST. LOUIS, MO — Advancement Project, the Fair Elections Legal Network (FELN), the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri today announced a legal challenge to a ballot proposal to amend the state constitution’s voting requirements, saying that the ballot language misleads voters and if passed will restrict the voting rights of Missourians, including the elderly, people with disabilities, and students, among others.

The ballot initiative, SJR2, slated to be placed on the ballot for November 2012, was passed by the legislature in May in an attempt to circumvent the Missouri Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling that restrictive photo ID voting laws are unconstitutional.

“I cannot imagine anything more cynical and shameful than using the voting process itself to trick voters into giving up their rights,” said Denise Lieberman, senior attorney for Advancement Project, a civil rights organization that works to eliminate barriers to voting and has been fighting photo ID laws across the country. “Just as the Missouri Supreme Court rejected Missouri’s photo ID law as a ‘heavy and substantial burden’ on voting rights, the court should reject this deceptive initiative. It does not make clear to voters that they will be giving up a fundamental right.”

The lawsuit – the first-ever challenge to a constitutional amendment on photo ID laws and the first lawsuit in the nation filed challenging the rash of photo ID proposals introduced in states across the country this year- was filed on Wednesday and names eight Missouri voters as plaintiffs….

Yep, true to form, republicans will do anything to suppress the vote of their opposition. They have a plan.

The lawsuit as filed:

http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=59534746&access_key=key-s4whi35odzh0mqgk429&page=1&viewMode=list

Governor Jay Nixon vetoed SB 3, the republican sponsored vote suppression/voter ID bill. Governor Nixon’s veto letter [pdf]:

[….]

June 17, 2011

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herwith I return to you House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal section 115.427, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to elections, with contingent effective date.

I disapprove of House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Pending approval of a constitutional amendment, House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 would require a government-issued photo identification to vote. This new mandate would disproportionately impact senior citizen and persons with disabilities, among others, who are qualified to vote and have been lawfully voting since becoming eligible to do so, but are less likely to have a driver’s license or government-issued photo ID. Disenfranchising certain classes of persons is not acceptable.

House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 imposes unnecessary burdens on senior citizens and persons with disabilities, for example, who do not have a government-issued photo ID, with no guarantee that, in the end, their vote will count. House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 first requires them to execute a legally-binding affidavit explaining why they lack a government-issued photo ID. After executing the affidavit, the senior citizen, person with a disability and anyone else who lacks a government-issued photo ID for the reason identified in the affidavit is not permitted to cast a regular ballot and is instead given a provisional ballot. Even after meeting these requirements mandated by House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3, their vote would not be counted unless the election authority compares their signature on the affidavit with their signature on file – a signature that may bear little resemblance to their current signature because it was written decades before – and determines that the two signatures match. Placing a cloud of uncertainty over ballots cast by qualified voters is inconsistent with an individual’s right to vote and have that vote counted. In addition, for those citizens wanting to avoid the uncertainty of a provisional ballot, House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 would require them to navigate a costly and time-consuming process to obtain a government-issued photo ID. House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 does not meet my approval, because it is unacceptable to impede or discourage citizens from voting who have lawfully cast ballots their entire adult lives.

In accordance with the reasons for disapproval stated above, I am returning House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 with my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

s/

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon

Governor

[emphasis added]

“…imposes unnecessary burdens on senior citizens and persons with disabilities, for example, who do not have a government-issued photo ID, with no guarantee that, in the end, their vote will count…”

Ah, yes, the provisional ballot.

“…first requires them to execute a legally-binding affidavit explaining why they lack a government-issued photo ID…”

Right, that should go over really well with the black helicopter crowd. You know, the republican base. What were they thinking?

“…their vote would not be counted unless the election authority compares their signature on the affidavit with their signature on file – a signature that may bear little resemblance to their current signature because it was written decades before – and determines that the two signatures match…”

Because we all know that county election authorities across the State of Missouri are handwriting experts.

Since the lege is bringing back the zombie Voter ID bill, I thought I would repost in full a diary I did last summer. Seems relevant and all. -Clark

We dodged a bullet at the end of the last legislative session when Republicans failed to move a new voter ID bill through the Missouri Legislature before the session came to an end. So why bother with another post on the topic? Because we can’t sit on our laurels, especially when the “victory” was just running out the clock. Whether it’s voter caging, voter purging, or voter ID laws, Republican voter suppression methods are like zombies – they keep coming back until decapitated. So let’s revisit what the voter ID bill means for Missouri, before Republicans resurrect it in the special session, or next regular session, or via ballot initiative.

Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and her office did an excellent job of assembling illustrative anecdotes from real people who would be affected if voters were required to present a government-issued ID (we are already required to present some sort of identification), but as they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. They also released an estimate of how many Missouri voters would be disenfranchised by the government ID requirement, which was about 240,000. But I was curious about where in Missouri these voters might live, so I requested a county-by-county breakdown of how many voters would be disenfranchised.

I was curious to see whether most of those affected lived in the big cities, since the elderly, the poor and minorities would be most affected, and the stereotype is that all poverty and people of color are collected in urban areas. Sure enough, in absolute numbers, Kansas City, St. Louis, and St. Louis County rank at the top of the list.

But added together, the outstate counties actually contain more of the potentially disenfranchised voters.  Out of 241,682 disenfranchised, only 40,900 live in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City, and 57,200 live in the suburban counties of Saint Louis and Jackson. The rest live around the state. Greene County  alone (where Springfield sits) has 11,787 potentially disenfranchised voters to Jackson County’s 10,365 (suburban KC – a population nearly triple that of Springfield.)

It gets a lot worse (illustrated with a map and tables!) below the flip.

You can make a good case against a Voter ID bill by looking only  at absolute numbers, but that’s missing half the picture. I pulled up the totals for registered voters by county, and looked at the disenfranchised voters as a percentage of registered voters in the county (to control for the much denser population in the cities and suburbs.) Suddenly, a stark vision of just how bad a Voter ID bill would be for the entire state drops into sharper relief. In fact, the hardest hit counties would be rural counties. Let’s look at a map. Blue counties are below 4% disenfranchisement, yellow means between 4-8%, orange is 8-10%, and red stands for greater than 10% who would be disenfranchised.

St. Louis County has the highest absolute number of potentially disenfranchised voters, but expressed as a percentage of total registered voters, it ranks just above Greene County. St. Louis City has the second highest absolute number, but ranks just above Jasper County (Joplin) if viewed as a percentage of registered voters.

11(!) counties would lose 10% or more of their voters. The hardest hit county is Schuyler, with a whopping 21.39% of its registered voters no longer being able to vote. Other counties  with big chunks of disenfranchised voters include Reynolds (20.64%), Pemiscot (15.81%) and Marion (15.14%)

This is a major concern not only for the presidential and statewide contests, but for races up and down the ticket. The people most likely to be disenfranchised are also most likely to vote Democratic. If we lose 5 to 20 percent of Democratic voters in counties all across Missouri, especially if many of the hardest hit are clustered together in state senate and congressional districts, it gets progressively harder to elect a Democrat in those districts.

Let’s look at Wes Shoemyer (D-18), the Democratic senator from NE Missouri. He was elected in 2006 by 1,842 votes. If the voter ID bill were in place at the time, he wouldn’t have been elected – 5 of the hardest hit counties are in his district. Knocking out the ability for Democrats to win downticket also hurts the chances of Democrats in later statewide contests, because the Democratic bench will thin out.

Beyond mere partisan concerns, giving the poor even less of a voice in our electoral system is the best way to ensure that those in need are ignored when it comes time to make state policy. And all of it in response to a problem that is completely made up. Not that I expect the Missouri GOP to care about that, since they are the ones concern trolling here, but everyone else ought to be outraged.

The full list of counties, in order of voter disenfranchisement percentage, is below for your perusal.

There was a lot of talk at the Missouri Democratic Convention about the new voter ID bill. Robin Carnahan made an excellent speech detailing the problems with the proposed bill (she expanded on this in a Huffington Post diary), and Rep. Lacy Clay highlighted Jay Nixon’s strong stance against new voter ID restrictions. Basically, the law would knock up to 240,000 Missourians off the voter rolls to combat a problem for which no evidence exists.

So what do we do about it? The bill is headed for the Missouri Senate, and about the best we can hope for is that a filibuster holds. This would be a good chance for Senator Koster to show he is a true Democrat and is willing to fight for the rights of the elderly, the poor, and minorities who would overwhelmingly be affected by the voter purge. Even in the event of a filibuster, the Republicans will probably break it with a PQ (“moving the previous question”, also known as the nuclear option) as they have done in recent sessions to get their way. So it then becomes paramount that the public be made aware of the problems with this bill before they vote on it in early August.

Fortunately, there’s also an extremely high profile statewide Democratic primary the same day the voter ID law would be placed on the ballot. Three Democrats are running for Attorney General, and if all of them speak often and loudly against the proposed law, in conjunction with other Missouri Democrats with big megaphones, the larger Democratic turnout might be able to overcome it. Jeff Harris is doing just that with a prominent anti-voter ID tool on his website: http://www.electjeffharris.com…

Let’s hope the other Attorney General candidates join him soon in this effort.

This kind of got lost in hotflash’s Friday night post about the pre-convention reception, but just as Jeff Harris told her then, he quickly replied to Blunt’s e-mail request, saying that he’s willing to immediately turn over the 75,000 documents Blunt requested at a cost of $10,000 to the taxpayer. One extra wrinkle – the House generally maintains that individual members of the House are not in of themselves public bodies and therefore not open to scrutiny under the Sunshine Law. Harris maintains that his willingness to comply has nothing to do with the validity of the House opinion.

I’m not sure why Blunt is going this route. Maybe he’s hoping that Harris can’t produce all of the documents, or that Harris might have some skeletons buried in those hard drives. But it’s egg on Blunt’s face if Harris can produce and nothing of consequence surfaces. Meanwhile, Harris gets extra press and an opportunity for a fundraising ask – Harris sent out an e-mail to his list calling Blunt’s attack a “Badge of Honor” and asked for a small contribution on behalf of the guy standing up to Blunt.