• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: vote suppression

Eric Burlison (r): no voting for you, and you, and you….

10 Tuesday Feb 2026

Posted by Michael Bersin in Congress

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

7th Congressional District, Eric Burlison, missouri, performative bullshit, poll tax, SAVE Act, social media, sycophant, Trump sycophant, vote suppression

A right wingnut solution in search of a problem.

American Citizen. Got married? Took your spouse’s name? Got divorced? Got remarried? Be prepared to present documents for every event in your life from birth.

Eric Burlison (r) [2025 file photo].

Yesterday:

Eric Burlison
[February 9, 2026]

If we’re serious about saving the country, pass the SAVE Act.
Make Democrats defend why they oppose requiring citizenship to vote. Force that vote.
The American people deserve to know where everyone stands.
[….]

The reality:

Review of Allegations of Noncitizen Registrants and Voters
July 2025

[….]

…in the context of each state’s voting eligible population, claims of noncitizen registrations and voting allege vanishingly small numbers. Even the largest claims (which are the most likely to be severe overestimates) never allege numbers that are more than a few tenths of a percent of the number of eligible voters in the state. This indicates that existing safeguards are broadly effective, as even highly motivated efforts identify only a relatively small number of records for potential concern. Election officials and other authorities are able to thoroughly investigate these concerns and move swiftly to address any evidence of improper registration or voting that may be found. Instead of highlighting a systemic or pervasive problem, these small numbers underscore the overall integrity of the underlying system…

[….]

“Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.” – Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755)

Some of the responses to Eric Burlison (r):

Is JD Vance going to be required to present 3 forms of ID for each name change?

Heh.

Citizenship is already required to vote.

It’s already a law that only US Citizens can vote in Federal elections, so no one is opposed to requiring citizenship to vote. In most places you also have to show ID such as a driver’s license as well – but that doesn’t prove citizenship, even REAL ID
We’re opposed to legislation that as written, will impose a “poll tax” on many married women because it has no provision for using marriage certificiates or court documents to show their birth certificate (in original name) and their current state ID (in another name) are both them.
If this isn’t the case, explain why AZ state law specifically mentions marriage certificates and court documents being acceptable along with birth certificates to prove citizenship, but the SAVES act does not?

Many eligible citizens don’t have documentary proof of citizenship
According to the U.S. Department of State, examples of primary citizenship evidence include a birth certificate, a U.S. passport, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a Certificate of Citizenship, or a Naturalization Certificate. (While Real IDs are often assumed to be a reliable proxy for citizenship, they do not definitively establish citizenship.)
Although at least one of these documents are in theory available to most citizens, not all voters have them readily available. According to recent studies:
9% of all eligible voters do not have, or do not have easy access to, documentary proof of citizenship.
52% of registered voters do not have an unexpired passport with their current legal name.
11% of registered voters do not have access to their birth certificate.

You say you’re for traditional family values, then want to take voting rights away from women who take their husband’s surname so that they can start their own family unit.
Make Eric defend why he opposes women voting (as if we don’t already know why).

I have voted in every election since I turned 18. Every. Single. One. I was born in the US. My parents and grandparents (and their grandparents) were born in the US). Under the SAVE act, it would cost me hundreds of dollars and months of work to find a method to prove that I’m a citizen because when I got married, I took my husband’s name.Explain to me how that makes any logical sense. I’ve been a registered voter for more than 35 years. Aren’t the GOP supposed to be pro-marriage and pro-family? It’s actually easier for me to have my name changed back to my birth name and give up my married name than to prove I’m the same person. It’s nothing but a clear attempt to disenfranchise women.

Eric Burlison, tell us about the roadblocks this could cause for voting women of all political parties.

and anyone else who has had name changes, like adopted children.

Republicans can’t win without voter suppression. It’s not about illegal voting. If they had any policy they wouldn’t need voter suppression.

Burlison apparently doesn’t know we already show ID at the polling places. To add a requirement of also showing birth certificates and/or passports is overkill.
Or is it just that Republicans want to make it harder for married women and non-international travelers to
vote?
(Cost of passport – $165)

Isn’t this just more work for women he take their husbands name?

This has nothing to do with Democrats. We already have a voter I.D. card, show our identity validated photo I. D. and are on the registered voter list. Anything more than that is redundant, serves no purpose and will prevent Americans from voting which is their Constitutional right.

It has everything to do with MAGA Trump sycophants fearing the outcome of the 2026 election.

Cool making it tougher for married women to vote 👍🏽

Deceitful comments Eric.

==========

Nobody but USA born should be voting.

Wait for it.

not even naturalized citizens?! They worked hard for the honor… and probably know more about the nation than natural born citizens. They deserve voting rights.

Including the First Lady?

==========

Dude. It’s already in the constitution that only citizens can vote. Why waste time on this nonsense?

In a normal world the person who represents us should be able read these comments and see how unpopular their idea is. In a normal world the person who represents us would answer the phone and listen to their constituents with respect and thoughtfulness, not badger them and hang up the phone. But apparently Burlison is not up to either of those tasks.

I have voted in every election for more than 40 years and I showed my ID every single time. Stop trying to create problems to solve

It’s going to be much harder if you ever move and have to explain why your last name is different than your birth certificate. And prove it with documentation. Which means you have to track down every document, which costs time and money, and even then, you may have jurisdictions that have different requirements. You have jurisdictions that may require in-person registration, which disenfranchises those with mobility issues.
It is a poll tax, and the burden is overwhelmingly carried by married women. That’s the goal. Suppress the vote among the lower income voters and women. The reason is to disenfranchise democrats, since both of those demographics favor Dems.

This would create a difficulty for those of us who are married and chose to take our husbands last name- I am against this. My grandmother fought and gained the right to vote in 1920. She was an advocate for voters rights and the importance of voting in every election. You represent me and I do not want any restriction placed on my right to vote.

It is already a law that only US citizens can vote. There are already multiple safeguards in place to uphold that law. There is no significant evidence that illegal immigrants are casting great swaths of votes. The “SAVE America Act” is voter suppression, full stop. It’s a pay to play bill that largely affects women. Stop pretending you’re the good guy. You’re not.

Please stop embarassing our state.

The SAVE Act is nothing more than a gussied up voter suppression tactic to “save” an unpopular party in the midterms.

Call it what it is, the Save act is all about voter Suppression, not Security.

Our elections are already secure, stop trying to cheat! How about Affordability?

This is voter suppression—a wolf in the sheep’s clothing of patriotism. Why are you trying to disenfranchise my elderly mother, who is one of your constituents? She changed her name when she married. If she doesn’t have a RealID or passport, then under this proposed law, she couldn’t vote. But apparently that’s okay with you, and according to you there’s something wrong with Dems for opposing this misogynistic bill. Your straw man arguments are designed to stoke division and outrage to cover a nefarious purpose of this bill—to suppress the votes of women. You seem to think your voters are stupid or uninformed. I hope they demonstrate that they are neither of those by voting you out!

TELL THE TRUTH! The Save Act will prevent millions of US citizens from voting. Some in your own district. It will require identification that many don’t have (I don’t travel so I don’t have a passport and my birth certificate has a different last name since I got married). This is the GOPs way of disenfrantchiseing people from voting because they know they are going to lose in Nov.

Stop trying to disenfranchise voters.

Jim Crow and Poll Taxes all over again.

Solution without a problem that just makes it more difficult for women and minorities to access voting.

Eric, you want to block women’s right to vote! You say there is a problem and yet I don’t see it Greene County? That is your turf. Are you making accusations?

Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. SAVE is another Project 2025 brainchild meant to hijack elections by centralizing control with the federal government. It is NOT meant to make elections safer but infinitely more corruptable.

They have a plan.

So, you are saying that all of the mostly Republican County Clerks that the citizens of Missouri have voted into office are worthless at their jobs? 🤨

Voter fraud is about .003% in this country. There is an OVER ABUNDANCE of words on this topic, but NO EVIDENCE of the kind of fraud Trump TALKS about. The SAVE ACT is a voter registration suppression attempt – half the people in the country don’t have passports, millions cannot put their hands on their birth certificates. My parents lost my birth certificate and I had to pay to acquire one. Is Burlison suggesting we are required to purchase something so we can vote? Of course, there is the extra burden for married women because their married name won’t match their birth certificate. The SAVE ACT promises to solve a problem we don’t have.

If Burlison is serious about saving the country, he should start by telling the truth: citizenship is already required to vote in federal elections. It’s been the law for decades. Every state already verifies eligibility. The SAVE Act isn’t about ‘saving the country’ – it’s about creating new barriers for millions of legal, already-registered voters – especially women.
If Burlison wants to “force a vote,” Democrats welcome it. Let’s put on the record who’s voting to make it harder for women – especially married, rural, and older women – to cast a ballot.

Only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections. That’s already the law. Democrats aren’t opposing “citizenship to vote,” they’re opposing performative legislation designed to solve a problem that doesn’t exist while making voting harder for people who are already eligible.
If this were really about election security, Republicans wouldn’t keep losing court cases for lack of evidence. And they wouldn’t block measures that actually protect elections, like funding poll workers, upgrading machines, or stopping partisan interference.
“Force the vote” isn’t about transparency. It’s about manufacturing suspicion, suppressing turnout, and then claiming victory when fewer people participate.
Saving democracy doesn’t start with pretending it’s under attack by imaginary voters. It starts with defending the right of real citizens to vote without obstacles invented for political gain.

Citizenship is already a requirement for voting. Maybe take a break from this and go attend a fourth grade civics lesson.

The only thing Eric Burlison is good at is looking for a problems where none exists.

This man is lying to you.

Why don’t you just admit you don’t want women to vote.?

What a nonsense post. Utter nonsense.

If you’re truly serious about saving the country, you’ll vote in November to replace this UFO-chasing nitwit with an actual grownup.

Heh.

The time is now

16 Sunday Aug 2020

Posted by Michael Bersin in Resist, social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

#resist, Bill Clinton, post office, social media, Twitter, USPS, vote suppression, voting

Yesterday:

Bill Clinton @BillClinton
If there was ever a time to protect this beautiful experiment we call a Democracy, it’s now.
2:23 PM · Aug 15, 2020

And:

Bill Clinton @BillClinton
We expect our elected officials to protect the right to vote and to ensure every vote is counted. This attack on the Postal Service —an institution as old as the Republic itself and depended upon, and trusted by, millions of Americans— is designed to ensure that neither is done.
2:23 PM · Aug 15, 2020

You all know what to do. Call. Call your members of Congress. All of them. Two senators and your representative. In Washington and their local offices. Jam the lines with your outrage.

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

16 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Jay Ashcroft, missouri, Secretary of State, vote suppression, voter photo ID, Warrensburg

Yesterday evening Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft brought his statewide voter photo ID tour to Warrensburg. Approximately twenty individuals showed up for his presentation and question and answer session, not counting his staff and media covering the event.

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r) in Warrensburg – June 16, 2017.

Secretary Ashcroft (r) spoke about the new requirements in Missouri to present photo ID when registered voters go to their polling place to cast their ballot. This, ostensibly, to prevent in person voter impersonation fraud at polling places on an election day. Secretary Ashcroft cited a case of voter registration fraud in the Kansas City area and instances of insufficient ballots at polling places in St. Louis in his discussion. Neither of these instances would have been addressed by these new voter photo ID requirements. When pressed by a questioner in the audience about the number of in person voter impersonation cases in Missouri Secretary Ashcroft deflected the discussion.

When asked about the appropriation of funds by the General Assembly to assist his office in communicating these new requirements to voters and to assist them in acquiring the photo IDs Secretary Ashcroft again deflected the question. A local newspaper reporter pointed out in his question to Secretary Ashcroft that there were only twenty people in the room and there are more than 20,000 people in Warrensburg. How is the Secretary of State’s office going to communicate the new ID requirements to those voters? The answer was somewhat vague, along the lines of “we’ll keep doing what we’re doing”. There was no discussion of any estimate of the number of registered voters in the state who do not have the required photo ID or of the costs associated with providing those voters with the proper ID.

There is a provision in the new law for a registered voter who has ID which would be sufficient in the past to use those forms of ID and sign an affidavit at their polling place on election day so that they could receive a regular ballot. There is also a provision in the new law for issuing a provisional ballot and allowing the registered voter to present their photo ID at their polling place at a later time before the polls close or, barring that, have their signature on the provisional ballot compared with their voter registration signature. In the latter instance the local election authority would have a process to compare the signatures and make a decision.

Anyone with an elderly relative can tell you that their relative’s current signature can possibly differ significantly from what it looked like decades ago.

Asking a question.

All this is taking place in an environment where there have been no documented cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud in the State of Missouri. Yet it is an article of faith with right wingnuts that such fraud is epidemic in Missouri and across the nation.

Absent evidence of in-person voter impersonation fraud the only outcome of these new ID requirements is voter suppression, particularly the kinds of eligible registered voters who have difficulty acquiring the necessary paperwork, for one reason or another, which would allow them to get the ID to allow them to vote on election day.

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)

Voter ID and the GOP art of hoodwinkery (April 7, 2016)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): bait and switch

28 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Denny Hoskins, HB 1073, HJR 47, missouri, vote suppression, voter ID

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)

HJR 47: a “constitutional” solution in search of a problem

25 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

General Assembly, missouri, vote suppression, voter ID

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)

Secretary of State Jason Kander (D): on attempts to suppress the vote

23 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

General Assembly, Jason Kander, misssouri, Secretary of State, vote suppression, voter ID

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.

Republicans want to spend $20 million for a problem that isn't.

10 Monday Oct 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

missouri, photo ID, Rep. Stacey Newman, vote suppression, voter ID

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:

HB 1952: an extension of vote caging techniques?

04 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

General Assembly, HB 1952, missouri, vote caging, vote suppression

HB 1952 Allows voters to challenge another voter’s registration

Sponsor: Cox, Stanley (118) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2010

CoSponsor: Funderburk, Doug (12) ……….etal. LR Number: 4721L.01I

Last Action: 02/03/2010 – Read Second Time (H)

HB1952

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Because, of course, the word of one voter over another will always get us accurate actionable information in a timely manner without endangering the rights of anyone? Because, of course, their motives are pure?

There’s an excellent summary of classic vote caging techniques at The Campaign Legal Center:

….”Vote caging” is when a political organization, typically a political party, compiles a “caging list” of voters whose mail came back undeliverable or who did not return the receipt, and uses that list to challenge those voters as not being validly registered. The challenges can occur prior to Election Day or at the polls….

The end result?:

….What happens when a voter on a caging list is challenged at the polls?

The procedures vary state by state. The voter may end up voting a provisional ballot (which is less likely to be counted). Or a voter may be asked to prove their place of residence, by producing a utility bill for instance (though many cannot provide such documentation on the spot). In some cases, a challenged voter may get flustered, or embarrassed, and may simply leave and not vote.  I personally have seen this happen with many elderly voters.  

In any case, the voter is delayed and may be intimidated.  If the challenging of voters slows down the voting process for other voters, it can create lines and discourage those with only minutes to spare who may be trying to vote on their lunch break.  Caging lists used to challenge voters can also create confusion in the polling place, which can become extremely busy either as the polls first open or as work lets out.  Again, delays can develop and voters get frustrated and leave. Collectively, the vote caging practice has the potential to disenfranchise thousands of voters, which is its aim….

The bill, because we’ve all been made aware of widespread voter fraud in the State of Missouri?:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1952

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES COX (Sponsor), FUNDERBURK, JONES (89), SCHAAF, GRISAMORE, BIVINS, SCHAD, RUESTMAN AND GATSCHENBERGER (Co-sponsors).

4721L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 115, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to voter registration challenges.

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

           Section A. Chapter 115, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 115.142, to read as follows:

           115.142. 1. Any registered voter may challenge the registration of another voter at a hearing before the local election authority with jurisdiction over the registration of the voter being challenged.

           2. A voter desiring to challenge a registration shall file with the local election authority a sworn statement of the grounds for the challenge that:

           (1) Identifies the voter whose registration is being challenged; and

           (2) States a specific qualification for registration that the challenged voter has not met based on the personal knowledge of the voter desiring to challenge the registration.

           3. (1) (a) Except as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection, on the filing of a sworn statement alleging a ground based on residence, the local election authority shall promptly deliver to the voter whose registration is challenged a confirmation notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this subdivision.

           (b) If the local election authority has reason to believe that a voter’s current residence is different from that indicated in the voter registration system, the local election authority shall deliver to the voter a written confirmation notice requesting confirmation of the voter’s current residence. The local election authority shall include an official confirmation notice response form with each confirmation notice delivered to a voter. The confirmation notice shall be delivered by forwardable mail to the voter’s last known address. The local election authority shall maintain a list of the confirmation notices mailed to voters, which for each notice shall include the voter’s name and the date the notice is mailed. The local election authority shall maintain and retain the list in accordance with rules prescribed by the secretary of state.

           (2) If the voter fails to submit the official confirmation notice response form to the local election authority within thirty days after the confirmation notice is mailed, the local election authority shall enter the voter’s name on a suspense list containing the name of each voter who failed to submit a response under this subsection.

           (3) The local election authority shall not deliver a confirmation notice resulting from a sworn statement filed after the seventy-fifth day before the date of the general election for state and county elections until after the date of that election. This subdivision shall not apply to a person who submits a registration application after the seventy-fifth day and before the thirtieth day before the general election for state and county elections.

           4. (1) On the filing of a sworn statement alleging a ground other than residence, the local election authority shall schedule a hearing on the challenge. The hearing procedure shall not apply to an allegation of a ground based on residence.

           (2) The local election authority shall conduct the hearing no later than the twentieth day after the date the statement is filed or on a later date requested by either party and agreed to by both parties.

           (3) A party may appear personally at the hearing to offer evidence or argument. A party may offer evidence or argument by affidavit without personally appearing if the party submits the affidavit to the local election authority before the hearing begins.

           5. The local election authority shall deliver written notice of the hearing on the challenge to each party to the controversy not later than the fifteenth day before the date of the hearing. The notice shall include the date, hour, and place set for the hearing, and a brief explanation of the right to appeal the local election authority’s decision. The notice delivered to the voter whose registration is challenged shall be accompanied by a copy of the sworn statement of the grounds for the challenge.

           6. (1) After hearing and considering the evidence or argument, the local election authority shall promptly determine the challenge and issue a decision in writing. If the local election authority determines that the voter’s registration should not be canceled, the registration shall continue in effect. If the local election authority determines that the voter’s registration should be cancelled, the local election authority shall cancel the registration on the thirty-first day after the date the local election authority’s decision is issued.

           (2) The local election authority shall retain a copy of the decision on file with the duplicate registration certificate of the voter whose registration was challenged, and shall deliver a copy to each party to the challenge.

A solution in search of a problem. Ah, I see it’s been sponsored by the usual suspects.

And what consequences are there for the individual who files a sworn statement challenging another voter’s registration which is then decided by the election authority for the challenged voter?

What do you think the effect of the notice of widespread voter challenges and hearings seventy-five days before a general election would be on voter turnout for that election?

Because, of course, voter fraud in Missouri has reached epidemic proportions:

Behind the GOP’s voter fraud hysteria

As Republicans warn of catastrophe at the polls, an expert on election fraud explains the real partisan hoax — the suppression of Democratic votes.

By Andrew Burmon

Oct. 15, 2008 |

…according to Lori Minnite, a professor of political science at Barnard College, who has spent the last eight years studying the role of fraud in U.S. elections, the Republican crusade against voter fraud is a strategic ruse. Rather than protecting the election process from voter fraud — a problem that barely exists — Minnite says the true aim of Republican efforts appears to be voter suppression across the partisan divide. According to Minnite, investigating voter fraud has become a Republican cottage industry over the last 20 years because it justifies questioning the eligibility of thousands of would-be voters — often targeting poor and minority citizens in urban areas that lean Democratic. Playing the role of vigilant watchdog gives GOP bureaucrats a pretext for obstructing the path of marginalized and first-time voters headed for the polls…

And from 2007:

Posted on Wednesday, May 2, 2007

2006 Missouri’s election was ground zero for GOP

by Greg Gordon

WASHINGTON – Accusations about voter fraud seemed to fly from every direction in Missouri before last fall’s elections. State and national Republicans leaders fretted that dead people might vote or that some live people might vote more than once.The threat to the integrity of the election was seen as so grave that Bradley Schlozman, the acting chief of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and later the U.S. attorney in Kansas City, twice wielded the power of the federal government to try to protect the balloting. The Republican-controlled Missouri General Assembly also stepped into action.

Now, six months after freshman Missouri Sen. Jim Talent’s defeat handed Democrats control of the U.S. Senate, disclosures in the wake of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys show that that Republican campaign to protect the balloting was not as it appeared. No significant voter fraud was ever proved….

….In a separate assessment of alleged voter fraud in Missouri, Lorraine Minnite, a Barnard College professor, found scant evidence of it. The study was undertaken for the nonpartisan policy-research group Demos, which despite its name isn’t affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Minnite, who’s writing a book on the issue of voter fraud, said successful drives to register poor people and minorities in recent years had threatened to “tip the balance of power” to Democrats, so it was understandable that the Republican Party would seek restrictions that “disproportionately hinder the opposition…”

Myths from the republican cosmology never go away, they get recycled by Missouri republicans.  

Recent Posts

  • Stormy Weather
  • Read the country, Mark (r)
  • Winning at losing…again
  • What were they thinking?
  • Reality bites Mark Alford (r)

Recent Comments

What good is the 25t… on We are the only people on the…
Michael Bersin on Wholly War
Michael Bersin on Wholly War
Campaign Finance: Ju… on Campaign Finance: Isn’t…
No Kings – War… on Warrensburg, Missouri – No Kin…

Archives

  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • 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
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • 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
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

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

  • 1,038,993 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...