Tag Archives: Jay Ashcroft

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): slow walk – part 2

12 Friday Jul 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

“…You think they’re doing this to delay the gathering of signatures? Of course they are…”

Today the Missouri Supreme Court refused to intervene in the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals ruling that the Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process.

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

From the Missouri ACLU:

ACLU Win Affirmed, But Ashcroft Continues to Prevent Vote
July 12, 2019 – 4:00pm

Today, the Missouri Supreme Court let stand the Court of Appeals holding that Secretary of State Ashcroft acted outside his legal authority by rejecting the referendum petition on Missouri’s abortion ban. This recognition that Ashcroft acted illegally should prevent him from ever again abusing his office to derail the people’s right to challenge legislation by referendum.

Unfortunately, Ashcroft is continuing to obstruct the people’s vote by dragging his feet in his quest to deny the people a say on Missouri’s extreme 8-week abortion ban. If he acted promptly, supporters could begin to gather signatures by July 18 at the latest. But Ashcroft seems intent to slow the process so that supporters will not have enough time to collect enough signatures.

“It is no secret that Ashcroft’s agenda is banning abortion in Missouri,” says Anthony Rothert, interim Executive Director at the ACLU of Missouri. “While it is fantastic that the courts have made clear that he acted illegally, he may well succeed in preventing voters from getting their say on this important issue. Ashcroft’s tenure as Missouri’s chief election officer continues to be marked by efforts to prevent Missourians from voting.”

If Ashcroft had not illegally rejected the referendum petition, then he would have had to certify the petition for signature gathering by July 18. He will not meet that deadline, which in turn denies a meaningful opportunity to collect signatures, which must be submitted by August 28.

We reject the idea that Missourians can be denied the right to a referendum because of the unlawful action of an elected official determined to take away constitutional rights. The people kept for themselves the right of referendum to safeguard Missourians from an overzealous, out-of-touch government. No matter how they would vote on the referendum, every Missourian is harmed by Ashcroft’s abuse of this office to serve his radical anti-abortion agenda.

Our fight is not over. We continue to push Ashcroft to his job by certifying ballot language by July 18. Should he fail to do so, we will not let Missourians forget that he has taken the fate of the abortion ban away from the voters of Missouri.

Ironic isn’t it? Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r) gets away with doing his job poorly. In Missouri republican circles that’s considered a feature, not a bug.

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker v. John R. Ashcroft, et al. (July 8, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): going forward with the HB 126 petition (July 8, 2019)

So this happened today (July 9, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): slow walk (July 10, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): slow walk

10 Wednesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

“…You think they’re doing this to delay the gathering of signatures? Of course they are…”

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

The Missouri Western District Court of Appeals ruled a few days ago that the Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process. Except:

ACLU of Missouri

Let us be very clear. We are NOT cleared to gather signatures yet. Why? Secretary Ashcroft is obstructing the right to referendum.
The court ruled that Secretary Ashcroft acted illegally. He is now purposefully denying the right of the people to have a referendum.
The court is allowing Secretary Ashcroft to restart the clock and delay giving us ballot language until it could be too late to collect signatures.
That’s why we’ve appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court today.

[….]

Know this: If we are blocked from the ballot box because Secretary Ashcroft has run down the clock and given us, the people, no meaningful chance to gather 100,000 signatures by August 28th, we will continue to fight.
The ACLU will do whatever is necessary to make sure abortion remains legal in Missouri. The campaign will work to make sure reproductive rights are preserved across the state in any way it can.

[….]

The fight for reproductive rights does not rely on a single tool. We will see you in the streets, in the legislature, at the ballot box, and in the court room.

[….]

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker v. John R. Ashcroft, et al. (July 8, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): going forward with the HB 126 petition (July 8, 2019)

So this happened today (July 9, 2019)

So this happened today

09 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

An entry today in the Missouri Court System Casenet after the Western District Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process.

WD82880 – AMERICAN CIVIL LIB, APEL V JOHN ASHCROFT, RES

07/09/2019

Mot for Rehearing/Tran to SC
motion and application; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
Filed By: ANTHONY EDWARD ROTHERT
On Behalf Of: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI, SARA E BAKER

Mot for Rehearing/Tran to SC
Respondents Ashcroft and Schmitts Motion for Rehearing, En Banc Review, or Transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
Filed By: DEAN JOHN SAUER
On Behalf Of: JOHN ROBERT ASHCROFT, ERIC SCHMITT

You think they’re doing this to delay the gathering of signatures? Of course they are…

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker v. John R. Ashcroft, et al. (July 8, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): going forward with the HB 126 petition (July 8, 2019)

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker v. John R. Ashcroft, et al.

08 Monday Jul 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The Missouri ACLU’s initiative petition to reverse the anti-abortion HB 126 can move forward in the process.

“We will not go back”

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

Today at the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals WD82880 [pdf]:

[….]

The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Sara E. Baker (collectively “ACLU”) appeal a trial court judgment dismissing its verified petition with prejudice and denying pending motions in a proceeding where the ACLU sought a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and declaratory relief from State officials after a referendum petition sample sheet was rejected. The Secretary of State exceeded his statutory authority by rejecting the sample sheet on constitutional grounds at a point when the Secretary of State’s authority was limited by section 116.332 to review of the sample sheet for sufficiency as to form.

[….]

1. The Secretary of State’s authority to review a referendum petition sample sheet for sufficiency as to form pursuant to section 116.332 does not extend to determining compliance with the constitution and is limited to determining substantial compliance with the form requirements set forth in section 116.030.

2. The Secretary of State was obligated to approve the ACLU’s sample sheet as sufficient as to form as no issues with compliance with section 116.030 were identified.

3. Though a writ of mandamus could have been sought to compel the Secretary of State to approve the ACLU’s sample sheet as sufficient as to form, permanent mandatory injunctive relief is also available to compel the Secretary of State to withdraw rejection of, and to approve, the sample sheet.

4. Rule 84.14 directs this court to give such judgment as the court ought to give. Judgment is entered compelling the Secretary of State to approve the ACLU’s sample sheet.

[….]

Pre 1973, 2019 medical instruments.

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): “…it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less…”

12 Wednesday Jun 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Another rejection of a petition for a referendum on the subject of HB 126 – which radically shuts down abortion in Missouri.

Pre 1973 2019 medical equipment.

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

Another press release:

For immediate release: June 11, 2019
[….]
Ashcroft Rejects Third Referendum Petition

Jefferson City, Mo. — Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft today rejected the third referendum petition on House Bill 126 for failing to comply with the Missouri Constitution. On May 17, 2019, the legislature passed HB126. The Governor signed HB126 on May 24 which included an “emergency clause,” a section that made a portion of the law effective immediately.

“The Constitution of Missouri may not be changed – and never has been changed – without a vote of the people,” Ashcroft said.

Approving a referendum petition in which a portion of the law is already in effect would set a new precedent in Missouri. Although the Missouri Constitution (Article III, Section 49) states the people may approve or reject by referendum any “act” of the general assembly, never in Missouri history has a secretary of state approved a referendum petition in which a portion of the law was already in effect. Additionally, a secretary of state has never approved a referendum of only a portion of an act of the legislature.

A small number of state constitutions provide an option to refer a portion of a law to the people for a vote, but Missouri does not have that option. As an example, the Maryland Constitution provides for a referendum of “any Act, or part of any Act” of the general assembly. In Oregon, a referendum on an “Act or part thereof” may be ordered by a petition. The State of Washington’s Constitution allows for a referendum of “all or part of any act, bill, or law” passed by the legislature. The Constitution of Arizona provides for a referendum of “any item, section, or part of any measure” and allows for the rest of the measure to become law.

—30—

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” – Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

In the Missouri Constitution:

Article III
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 52a

Referendum–exceptions–procedure.

Section 52(a). A referendum may be ordered (except as to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and laws making appropriations for the current expenses of the state government, for the maintenance of state institutions and for the support of public schools) either by petitions signed by five percent of the legal voters in each of two-thirds of the congressional districts in the state, or by the general assembly, as other bills are enacted. Referendum petitions shall be filed with the secretary of state not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the general assembly which passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. IV, § 57.

Uh, the Maryland, Oregon, Arizona, etc. state Constitutions have nothing to do with Missouri.

“…it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less…”

“…Referendum petitions shall be filed with the secretary of state not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the general assembly which passed the bill on which the referendum is demanded.”

The petition has to be filled not more than ninety days after the final adjournment of the General Assembly which passed the law. That’s it. There’s no restriction if the law is in “effect” or not at the time the petition is filled.

So, Jay, tell us who’s trying to rewrite the Missouri Constitution without a vote of the people?

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency! (June 7, 2019)

Campaign Finance: fighting HB 126

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): Emergency! Emergency!

07 Friday Jun 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“…This move is so predictable, we’ve already assembled our suit to require the Secretary of State to put aside his anti-abortion agenda and do his job by certifying the referendum.”

Pre 1973 2019 medical equipment.

Missouri Secretary of Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

From the office of Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r):

For immediate release: June 6, 2019
[….]
Ashcroft Rejects Two Referendum Petitions

Jefferson City, Mo. — Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft today held a press conference to announce the rejection of two referendum petitions for failing to comply with the Missouri Constitution.

On May 17, 2019, the legislature passed HB126, called the “Heartbeat Bill”. The Governor signed HB126 on May 24, which included a section that made a portion of the law effective immediately. It stated: “Because of the need to protect the health and safety of women and their children, both unborn and born, the repeal and reenactment of section 188.028 of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace and safety and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and the repeal and reenactment of section 188.028 of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.” This emergency clause was approved, as required in Article III, Section 29 of the Constitution, by two-thirds of the legislature.

Article III of the Constitution reserves the people’s power to approve or reject acts of the legislature, called a referendum, which may occur on bills passed by the House and Senate. To begin the referendum process, a referendum petition must be filed with the Secretary of State not less than 90 days after the end of the legislative session during which the bill was approved. Once filed, the referendum petition is examined by the Secretary of State, and transmitted to the Attorney General and Auditor for review. State law requires the Secretary of State to approve or reject a petition. If approved, the referendum petition may be circulated for signatures, and will be placed on the ballot of the next general election if it meets the signature requirements as described in Article III, Section 52(a) of the constitution.

There are certain limits to the people’s right to a referendum. Specifically, Article III, Section 52(a) makes exceptions for “laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and laws making appropriations for the current expenses of the state government, for the maintenance of state institutions and for the support of public schools.”

Because the legislature approved HB126 and its emergency clause with the constitutionally-required two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature, HB126 may not be referred to the people.

—30—

Apparently the emergency is that women in Missouri aren’t supposed to have the autonomy to make their own health care decisions.

This will go to court.

Alison Dreith @alidreith
Denying the people their constitutional right to referendum is a sad and cynical ploy, but it is not surprising given that HB126’s entire purpose is to elevate the legislature above constitutional rights. The @aclu_mo will see @MissouriSOS @JayAshcroftMO in court.
[….]
11:46 AM – 6 Jun 2019

Uh, yep:

MO Secretary of State Creates Sham Emergency, Rejects Referendum

June 6, 2019 – 12:00pm
Statement attributed to Tony Rothert, Acting Executive Director, ACLU of Missouri

The Missouri constitution gives citizens the right to veto a newly enacted law by referendum.

Secretary of State John Ashcroft is caught up in Missouri politicians’ longing to be the first state in the nation to ban abortion. Predictably, he is trying to deprive Missourians’ of their right to weigh in on the abortion question with a vote.

Denying the people their constitutional right to referendum is a sad and cynical ploy, but it is not surprising given that HB126’s entire purpose is to elevate the legislature above constitutional rights.
This cowardly move by the Secretary of State proves that Missouri’s anti-abortion zealots understand that they’re acting against the wishes of the majority. They hope to short-circuit the people’s vote because they know they will lose if the people get their say.

This move is so predictable, we’ve already assembled our suit to require the Secretary of State to put aside his anti-abortion agenda and do his job by certifying the referendum.

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): Alabama, hold my beer… (May 15, 2019)

Gov. Mike Parson (r): New York is shorthand for what? (May 16, 2019)

Medieval (May 17, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): post session victory dance over any individal woman’s personal medical decisions (May 17, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the 13th Century GOP in 21st Century America (May 20, 2019)

HB 126: the elephant in the womb (May 24, 2019)

HB 126: “…here for the ratio” (May 25, 2016)

Missouri: Medieval (May 28, 2019)

ACLU: Referendum Petition filed on HB 126 (May 28, 2019)

Women’s Health Care in Missouri – 1, Gov. Mike Parson (r) – 0 (May 31, 2019)

Our nation turns its eyes to Missouri (June 1, 2019)

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D): Gov. Mike Parson (r) and HB 126 – “…extreme and cruel.” (June 3, 2019)

In the Medieval State of Missouri (June 4, 2019)

Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r): April Campaign Finance Report – 2019

16 Tuesday Apr 2019

Posted by in campaign finance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The April quarterly campaign finance reports are due at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

From Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s (r) campaign committee:

C151004: Ashcroft For Missouri
Committee Type: Candidate
Po Box 1554
Jefferson City Mo 65102
Party Affiliation: Republican
Established Date: 01/06/2015
[….]
Information Reported On: 2019 – April Quarterly Report
Beginning Money on Hand $113,246.70
Monetary Receipts + $95,700.00
Monetary Expenditures – $2,793.96
Contributions Made – $75.00
Other Disbursements – $0.00
Subtotal $92,831.04
Ending Money On Hand $206,077.74

[emphasis added]

Not a lot in expenditures. 2022 is a while away.

About those small contributions:

MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION
CONTRIBUTIONS AND LOANS RECEIVED
Ashcroft For Missouri 4/15/2019

13. TOTAL MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS GIVING $100 OR LESS $150.00
14. TOTAL IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS (NOT COMMITTEES) GIVING $100 OR LESS $60.00

[emphasis added]

That’s out of $95,700.00 raised in the quarter.

By the book

14 Friday Dec 2018

Posted by in Josh Hawley, US Senate

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

“…heightened scrutiny…”

Josh Hawley (r) [2016 file photo].

State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D) [2018 file photo].

Auditor Galloway responds to request from Secretary of State for assistance in investigating complaint against Attorney General
December 14, 2018

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo (Dec. 14, 2018) State Auditor Nicole Galloway today responded to the request by Secretary Jay Ashcroft for assistance in investigating a complaint against the Attorney General. The complaint alleges Attorney General Josh Hawley used public funds to support his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. A routine closeout audit of the Attorney General’s Office will begin after Attorney General Hawley officially resigns.

“The goal of an independent audit is to get to the truth for taxpayers and not to proceed based on assumptions,” Auditor Galloway said. “My office will review these concerns with heightened scrutiny.”
[….]

It’s nice to have a real State Auditor.

The letter [pdf] from State Auditor Nicole Galloway (D) to Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r):

Nicole R. Galloway, CPA
Missouri State Auditor
December 14, 2018

The Honorable John R. Ashcroft
Secretary of State
James C. Kirkpatrick State Information Center
600 W. Main Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101

Re: Closeout audit of the Missouri Attorney General’s Office

Dear Secretary Ashcroft:

In your letter dated December 10, 2018, you requested my office investigate, as part of or routine closeout audit, whether Attorney general Josh Hawley used public funds while Attorney general in support of hi candidacy for the U.S Senate. In that letter, you also offered to provide documents to my office and requested access to audit records, as well s access to audit discussions with employees and third-parties related to the allegations of improper use of state resources.

Based on you letter, I understand that you have determined that the allegations in the American Democracy League Fund complaint are not frivolous, and are proceeding with an investigation. We appreciate your offer to provide documentation obtained in the course of your investigation. My office will be reaching out to your office to request these documents.

As you noted, the State Auditor’s Office always reviews use of taxpayer funds in audits. The same is true of any closeout audit of a statewide office holder. Based on the concerns expressed in your letter, my office will review the allegation with heightened scrutiny.

A closeout audit will begin when the term of the prior officer has ended – here, after Attorney general Hawley officially resigns. Attorney General Hawley’s administration will be the subject of the audit, but the auditee will be both Attorney general Hawley and appointed Attorney General Eric Schmitt. As such, document requests to that office will be directed to and processed by incoming Attorney General Schmitt.

Missouri law permits us to share with you records in matters officially before your office. In conducting an audit, we must comply with Government Auditing Standards established by the Comptroller General of the United States, as well as Missouri law. We look forward to discussing those parameters with your office.

[….]

My Chief of Staff, Michael Moorefield, will be contacting your office in the coming days.

Sincerely,
s/
Nicole Galloway, CPA
State Auditor

cc: The Honorable Josh Hawley, Missouri Attorney General
The Honorable Eric Schmitt, Missouri State Treasurer

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

Alrighty then.

The Russian Perils of Claire

26 Thursday Jul 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Who is it who really, really wants to keep the congress in GOP hands? If  you wanna know just take a look at who’s targeting Missouri’s Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, widely perceived to be vulnerable to raging Trumpites when she comes up for reelection this November.

There’s the 1% -the folks like the Kochs who – via their front group, Americans for Prosperity – are throwing $1.8 million dollars in ad buys at her. They think that emphasizing the GOP shaft-the-middle-class tax cut will do the trick. I guess the richest of the rich really like increasing the national debt on the backs of working Americans. (Didn’t Republicans oppose debt once  upon a time? Like when it was a question of providing Americans with healthcare? And there wasn’t any debt increase in spite their efforts to gull the gullible?)

But, hey, we’ve known for years about how wealthy Americans try to purchase elections with their talking – no – their shouting, money. Nothing new to see there. Sadly.

There is, however,  a new wrinkle:  Russians:

The Russian intelligence agency behind the 2016 election cyberattacks targeted Sen. Claire McCaskill as she began her 2018 re-election campaign in earnest, a Daily Beast forensic analysis reveals. That makes the Missouri Democrat the first identified target of the Kremlin’s 2018 election interference.

McCaskill responded with her usual verve:

“Russia continues to engage in cyber warfare against our democracy,” McCaskill said in a press release Thursday evening. “While this attack was not successful, it is outrageous that they think they can get away with this. I will not be intimidated. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is a thug and a bully.”

McCaskill was one of three midterm candidates targeted by “spearphishing” efforts. We’ve known that such attacks (and other types of meddling) were likely for some time but our intrepid GOP-majority congress and the Russia-friendly Trump administration  have dithered and done little to forestall the threat. Missouri’s own Secretary of State, jolly little Jay Ashcroft, has said domestic election fraud is a bigger threat in November – despite no evidence to that effect.

But, hey, Senator McCaskill doesn’t need to worry – no less an eminence than our reality star president has acknowledged the threat. He just declared that the Russians are hard at work to help Democrats.  Because he’s so hard on the Russians (not).

Missouri voter photo ID law challenged in court case

13 Wednesday Jun 2018

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

In 2016 the republican controlled General Assembly overrode then Governor Jay Nixon’s (D) veto of HB 1631, a more restrictive voter photo ID law.

“…my position is we should make voting available to as many people as we possibly can. I mean, and we should make it as easy as we possibly can for people to vote. Uh, and, uh, so we’re reviewing this, this is relatively similar to a measure that I vetoed a few years ago, uh, that would have, uh, made it very expensive and difficult, especially for senior citizens and others that didn’t have driving privileges to, uh, to get a separate state issued ID. So, um, it’s not an area that my, my general philosophy is let’s make voting, uh, easier for folks, um, so this kind of, uh, comes at that…” – Governor Jay Nixon (D), on HB 1631, June 16, 2016

“…I’m not, I’m gonna let you get back now to today’s opening ceremonies because I know I’m not who you came to hear and I know that none of this was what you wanted to hear. But I am your Secretary of State for a bit little longer, and as a result I feel a responsibility to tell you that even though you have the power to take away the right to vote from the citizens of Missouri, you shouldn’t.
And that if you choose to follow the example of Wisconsin or North Carolina, well then, I guess we’ll see you in court. [applause]” – Secretary of State Jason Kander (D), January 4, 2017

That has come to pass.

Today Priorities USA filed a suit in Circuit Court in Cole County over Missouri’s voter ID law:

June 13, 2018 | Press Release
Priorities USA and a Missouri Voter File Suit Against Missouri’s Burdensome Strict Photo ID Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 13, 2018

Washington, DC — Today, Priorities USA and a Missouri voter filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cole County against the State of Missouri and its Secretary of State, John R. Ashcroft, requesting that the court restrain the Secretary from enforcing the state’s burdensome photo identification requirements in upcoming elections and declare that these requirements violate the Missouri Constitution.
In 2016, the Missouri General Assembly passed HB 1631, a bill containing new, burdensome photo identification requirements, over Governor Jay Nixon’s veto. HB 1631 lays out a narrow list of acceptable photo IDs that a voter must present in order to cast their ballot, along with an arduous process for eligible voters without photo ID that involves, at various stages, signing a confusing and misleading sworn statement under penalty of perjury, returning to the polling place with acceptable ID, or having untrained individuals match signatures in order to verify the voter’s identity.
A study conducted by the Missouri Secretary of State in 2014 indicated that the implementation of a comparable photo ID law could disenfranchise 220,000 eligible Missouri voters. The complaint filed today argues that HB 1631 would have similar effects, given the time and effort required to obtain even a free state-issued photo ID and the labyrinthine procedures for voters who forget or are unable to bring their acceptable photo ID.
“When state lawmakers passed HB 1631, they began to chip away at Missourians’ fundamental right to vote,” said Guy Cecil, Chairman of Priorities USA. “The Missouri Supreme Court rightfully found an earlier attempt to do the same thing unnecessary and unfair to Missouri voters. The legislature should not be permitted to evade the law and burden voting rights. In order to ensure that everyone in Missouri who wants to cast a ballot is able to do so, Priorities USA and many others will have to spend significant time, money and effort to educate Missourians about these new, onerous photo ID requirements. We’re asking the court to enjoin this law before the upcoming elections, and we look forward to our day in court when we’ll show HB 1631 to be the unconstitutional farce that it is.”
The lawsuit filed today comes on the heels of separate litigation brought about by the Missouri NAACP, which challenged HB 1631 on the grounds that the state did not provide adequate funding for the new photo ID requirements. While Priorities USA is not involved in the NAACP lawsuit and is presenting the court with a different legal argument based on the constitutionality of HB 1631, Priorities remains supportive of the NAACP’s parallel efforts to invalidate the law.
Earlier this year, Priorities USA joined a lawsuit challenging Florida’s law requiring candidates of the governor’s political party to be listed in the first position on every ballot. The Priorities USA Foundation, an affiliated non-partisan group that engages in voting rights advocacy, has also supported litigation in Indiana, New Hampshire, Florida, and Iowa against laws and practices that restrict the right to vote.

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (r) [2017 file photo].

A year ago at Show Me Progress:

…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 [of State John] Ashcroft [(r)] 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…

Inadequate funding and insufficient notice? If only someone had thought of that a year ago. Oh, wait…

Previously:

Gov. Jay Nixon (D): on SB 656 (“stand your ground”) and HJR 53/HB 1631 (voter ID) (June 16, 2016)

Gov. Jay Nixon: veto of HB 1631 – voter photo ID (July 7, 2016)

Secretary of State Jason Kander (D): at the opening of the legislative session (January 4, 2017)

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