• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: lawsuit

“…The answer is no…”

01 Thursday Dec 2022

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

11th Circuit Court of Appeals, classified documents, Donald Trump, Fascist pig, Grifter, insurrectionist, lawsuit, right wingnut, search warrant, seditionist, theft, Treason

The prohibition of the theft and hoarding of classified documents (along with other publically owned materials) in the law applies to everyone.

TrumpvUnitedStates11thCircuitCourtAppeals202213005

…This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no.

Former President Donald J. Trump brought a civil action seeking an injunction against the government after it executed a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago residence. He argues that a court-mandated special master review process is necessary because the government’s Privilege Review Team protocols were inadequate, because various seized documents are protected by executive or attorney-client privilege, because he could have declassified documents or designated them as personal rather than presidential records, and—if all that fails—because the government’s appeal was procedurally deficient. The overnment disagrees with each contention.

[….]

In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed…

[….]

…Indeed, Plaintiff does not press the district court’s theory on appeal. Instead, he argues that the Presidential Records Act gives him a possessory interest in the seized documents. This argument is unresponsive. Even if Plaintiff’s statutory interpretation were correct (a proposition that we neither consider nor endorse), personal interest in or ownership of a seized document is not synonymous with the need for its return.3 In most search warrants, the government seizes property that unambiguously belongs to the subject of a search. That cannot be enough to support equitable jurisdiction….

(footnote) 3 During discussion of this factor at oral argument, Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the seized items included “golf shirts” and “pictures of Celine Dion.” The government concedes that Plaintiff “may have a property interest in his personal effects.” While Plaintiff may have an interest in these items and others like them, we do not see the need for their immediate return after seizure under a presumptively lawful search warrant.

….Having failed to show his own need, Plaintiff attempts—as he did in the district court—to reverse the standard, arguing that the government does not need the non-classified documents for its investigation. This is not self-evident, but it would be irrelevant in any event. Plaintiff’s task was to show why he needed the documents, not why the government did not. He has failed to meet his burden under this factor….

….Plaintiff’s alternative framing of his grievance is that he needs a special master and an injunction to protect documents that he designated as personal under the Presidential Records Act. But as we have said, the status of a document as personal or presidential does not alter the authority of the government to seize it under a warrant supported by probable cause; search warrants authorize the seizure of personal records as a matter of course. The Department of Justice has the documents because they were seized with a search warrant, not because of their status under the Presidential Records Act. So Plaintiff’s suggestion that “whether the Government is entitled to retain some or all the seized documents has not been determined by any court” is incorrect. The magistrate judge decided that issue when approving the warrant. To the extent that the categorization of these documents has legal relevance in future proceedings, the issue can be raised at that time….

….The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is required.

The district court improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction in this case. For that reason, we VACATE the September 5 order on appeal and REMAND with instructions for the district court to DISMISS the underlying civil action.

Dayam.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

No one is above the law. No one.

Previously:

Schadenfreude-a-Lago (August 8, 2022)

Barking out approved talking points with the rest of the MAGA seals (August 9, 2022)

Tell us you don’t know how search warrants actually work without telling us you don’t know how they work (August 9, 2022)

Former County Sheriff Publicly Denounces “No one is above the law” (August 10, 2022)

He was framed! (August 11, 2022)

And your point is? (August 11, 2022)

Proliferation (August 12, 2022)

Now what, Josh (r)? (August 12, 2022)

Lock him up (August 31, 2022)

“He went to Jared…” (September 2, 2022)

The Special Counsel always rings twice (November 18, 2022)

Yale called, Josh, they want their law degree back

16 Wednesday Nov 2022

Posted by Michael Bersin in Josh Hawley

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Attorney General, Fascist pig, Josh Hawley, lawsuit, Missouri Sunshine Law, political hackery, right wingnut, RSMo § 610

“…The AGO’s indefinite delay here – which terminated only by compulsion of the discovery process – crossed the line. This conclusion is also butressed by the fact that the AGO provided no further communication to DSCC concerning this Sunshine Law Request after May 1, 2018; had DSCC not filed suit, the AGO would not have produced the responsive records [….] The AGO’s wrongful denial of DSCC’s request violated the Sunshine Law….” – November 14, 2022 – Judge Jon Beetem – Cole County Circuit Court, 19th Judicial Circuit

Josh Hawley Violates Sunshine Law While State’s Top Attorney
Feb 02, 2019

[….]

Missouri Democratic Party Executive Director, Lauren Gepford, released the following statement:

“’t has become abundantly clear that Josh Hawley used his taxpayer-paid office as Attorney General to climb the ladder to the U.S. Senate, and apparently was willing to disregard the laws he swore to uphold in doing so. When the very person charged with enforcing our Sunshine Law can’t be trusted to follow it, Missourians’ trust in their government is undermined. Senator Hawley is no different from those career politicians he blasts on the campaign trail.’

[….]

Josh Hawley (r) [2016 file photo].

Political hackery in the Missouri Attoney General’s Office under Josh Hawley (r) in support of his ladder climbing? Say it ain’t so.

It is so:

ColeCountyJoshHawleyAGOCC00119 [pdf]

Subverting the Missouri Sunshine Law – RSMo § 610 – by the office supposedly in charge of enforcing it? Say it ain’t so.

$12,000.00 fine and court costs. Josh Hawley doesn’t get to pay those penalties, the taxpayers of Missouri do.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) – town hall in Warrensburg – Press Q and A – August 17, 2017 (August 17, 2017)

What passes for a flatbed truck at “…Yale, I think, or Harvard, one of those, one of those fancy ones…” (August 16, 2018)

$973,411.00

04 Thursday Nov 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in campaign finance, US Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, FEC, Giffords, Josh Hawley, lawsuit, missouri, NRA, U.S. Senate

Josh Hawley (r) [2016 file photo].

Giffords Sues the National Rifle Association for Violating Campaign Finance Laws
The lawsuit alleges the NRA illegally coordinated expenditures with several federal candidates, funneling about $35 million in illegal campaign contributions to Senate and presidential races.
NOVEMBER 2, 2021

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, Giffords filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against the NRA for violations of campaign finance laws dating back to 2014. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Giffords by Campaign Legal Center Action, alleges that the NRA engaged in a broad pattern of activity that violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. Since 2014, the NRA has made as much as $35 million in unlawful, excessive, and unreported in-kind campaign contributions to seven federal candidates, including candidates for US Senate in 2014, 2016, and 2018, and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

[….]

Giffords filed a series of complaints in 2018 to alert the Federal Election Commission that the NRA was engaged in an unlawful scheme that violated federal election law. When the FEC did nothing, Giffords, represented by Campaign Legal Center Action, took the Commission to court. On September 30, the US District Court in Washington issued an order compelling the FEC to act on the complaints within 30 days. The FEC once again failed to do its job, and after 30 days elapsed, the Court ruled that Giffords could sue the NRA directly for violations of federal campaign finance law.

[….]

The lawsuit seeks several forms of relief, including an order preventing the NRA from violating the law in future elections, and a penalty equal to the amount of money unlawfully spent, which the NRA would pay to the US treasury—potentially as much as $35 million. [….]

The races at the heart of the lawsuit include the following….

[….]

2018: Josh Hawley in the race for Senate in Missouri (vs. Claire McCaskill)…

The lawsuit:

Giffords-v.-NRA-Complaint-filed110221 [pdf]

Just short of a million.

So it begins

21 Friday May 2021

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

19th Judicial Circuit, Cole County, lawsuit, Medicaid expansion, missouri

The first lawsuit to address the Missouri General Assembly’s refusal to fund Medicaid expansion in the state has been filed.

Steve Edwards @SDECoxHealth
Today, Jefferson City attorneys Chuck Hatfield and Lowell Pearson filed suit requiring the state to expand Medicaid as specified by the Missouri Constitution. They filed on behalf of three adults who will be newly eligible for the expanded program.
8:00 PM · May 20, 2021

Yesterday, in the 19th Judicial Circuit, Cole County:

21AC-CC00186 – STEPHANIE DOYLE ET AL V JENNIFER TIDBALL ET AL (E-CASE)
Judge/Commissioner Assigned: BEETEM, JON EDWARD Date Filed: 05/20/2021
Location: Cole Circuit Case Type: CC Declaratory Judgment
[….]

Filed on behalf of three individuals, with the following defendants:

TIDBALL , JENNIFER , Defendant
MO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVIC
[….]

STATE OF MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES , Defendant
BROADWAY STATE OFFICE BUILDING
[….]

MATHEWS , KIRK , Defendant
MO HEALTHNET DIVISION
[….]

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES – MO HEALTHNET DIVISION , Defendant
[….]

EVANS , KIM , Defendant
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, FSD
[….]

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION , Defendant
[….]

Previously:

Sen. Ed Emery (r): if you want Medicaid move to another state (May 19, 2014)

So, why hasn’t Medicaid Expansion happened in Missouri? (March 31, 2019)

Medicaid Expansion in Missouri: petition signatures submitted – for the November ballot (May 1, 2020)

Medicaid Expansion Rally – Clinton, Missouri – April 17, 2021 (April 17, 2021)

Medicaid expansion? What Medicaid expansion? (May 3, 2021)

Well, okay

13 Wednesday May 2020

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

chasing butterflies and unicorns, China, Corona virus, COVID-19, distract the masses, Eric Schmitt, lawsuit, pandemic, Sheena Greitens, social media, Twitter

We’ll just leaves this right here:

Sheena Greitens @SheenaGreitens
Global Times warning of “Punishment measures against…. the State of Missouri…. “
[….]
1:17 PM · May 13, 2020

On Monday:

Attorney General Schmitt Joins 18-State Letter Asking Congress to Investigate the Chinese Government’s Role in Pandemic
May 11, 2020, 15:32 PM by AG Schmitt

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, along with 17 other state Attorneys General, sent a letter calling on Congress to investigate the Chinese government’s role in the COVID-19 pandemic. Led by South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, the letter was sent on Friday to the leadership of the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and other House and Senate leaders asking for a Congressional investigation.

“Last month, we became the first state to file suit against China, alleging that their inaction and suppression of information during critical days early in 2020 led to the spread of COVID-19 across the globe. Here in Missouri, the impact of the virus is clear: thousands have been sickened and hundreds have died, staggering unemployment claims have been filed, companies have been forced to close their doors, and loved ones are separated from each other,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “Congress should investigate the role that China’s Communist Party and government played in this pandemic.”

In April, Missouri became the first in the nation to file a lawsuit against the Communist authorities in China, citing a “campaign of deceit” on the part of the Chinese authorities related to the outbreak of the pandemic. In addition, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch announced her decision also to file a lawsuit holding China’s government accountable.

The current U.S. death toll from this coronavirus is nearly 80,000 and the pandemic’s economic devastation has caused the unemployment rate to skyrocket from 3.5 percent in February to its current rate of 14.7 percent.

“One of our colleagues has already filed suit against China and many of us are considering similar legal actions,” South Carolina Attorney General Wilson said. “Congressional hearings are critical to our nation’s understanding of the origins of COVID-19 and efforts by the communist Chinese government to deceive the international community.”

In addition to South Carolina and Missouri, the following states’ attorneys general signed onto the letter: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

[….]
###

“…the pandemic’s economic devastation has caused the unemployment rate to skyrocket from 3.5 percent in February to its current rate of 14.7 percent…” But, but, the stock market.

Now, only if he’d investigate Donald Trump’s (r) role.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Picture this

09 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

ACLU, Jay Ashcroft, lawsuit, missouri, Secretary of State, voter photo ID

File this under “see you in court”.

Jay Ashcroft (r) [2015 file photo].

Groups Challenge Missouri Photo ID Law in Court

Jefferson City, Mo. — Advancement Project’s National Office and The American Civil Liberties Union today sued Missouri over the state’s new photo ID law.

The case was filed on behalf of the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Missouri. The groups are seeking a temporary restraining order to block the law from being in effect during a local special election on July 11. In-person absentee voting for this election begins this Monday, June 12. An additional 52 Missouri counties go to the polls on August 8.

The request was made in part because Missouri’s chief elections official, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, has admitted the state would be unable to implement the requirements of restrictive photo ID law in time for this election and the state has yet to allocate funds to the Secretary to implement the law.
 
“Missouri’s restrictive photo ID law was designed to make it harder for people to vote,” said Denise Lieberman, Co-Director of Power and Democracy at Advancement Project’s national office, and coordinator of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition. “It is a gimmick that – as we’ve seen in other states – inevitably leads to blocking people from the ballot, especially people of color, young voters, seniors, women, and people with disabilities. This suppressive effect is magnified once the state fails to hold its end of the bargain. It is beyond unacceptable that the state of Missouri has launched a photo ID requirement while not sufficiently preparing, educating voters, or funding it. As a result, the burden is now falling on the backs of voters.”

“Voters were promised that this law was not about disenfranchising the most vulnerable in our state,” said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri. “The state’s lack of funding and implementation of this law tells another story.”

“States are not allowed to make an end run around voting rights by forcing burdensome changes to election law and then failing to provide the required funding for proper implementation,” said Sophia Lakin, an attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project.
 
Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are among the states that have already been reprimanded by the courts for disastrous implementation of their voter ID laws and inadequate, confusing voter education.

The case, Missouri NAACP v. Missouri, was filed in Cole County Circuit Court.

###

It ain’t a pretty image.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): I’ll, I’ll sue…

01 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, lawsuit, missouri, Obama, Vicky Hartzler

This morning, from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r), via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Yesterday the House voted to defend the Constitution and curb executive overreach. Read my statement here: [….] 8:29 AM – 31 Jul 2014

She voted with the republican majority in the House to authorize a lawsuit against President Obama.

There were a number of responses:

pat ‏@PATR2014

@RepHartzler what Constittution..it has Redress built in ..but party of stupid sued instead. Keep listening to @KarlRove. 8:32 AM – 31 Jul 2014

That was blunt.

Lady With A Voice ‏@champa10

@RepHartzler Not buying it lady. Yet GOP wants America to believe they bare no blame.. Since day 1 your party has been NO GO GOP! 8:32 AM – 31 Jul 2014

So was that.

Cody Welton ‏@acoupstick

@RepHartzler Do nothing, blame Obama. Wash, rinse, repeat. 8:34 AM – 31 Jul 2014

I don’t think they actually wash and rinse.

hungryprof ‏@hungryprof

@RepHartzler Please. You’re probably smart enough to know how stupid and wasteful this lawsuit is but you’re afraid to speak up. 10:04 AM – 31 Jul 2014

That assumes facts not in evidence.

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler Why such a half measure? If the President has violated the Constitution, you should impeach him! 10:56 AM – 31 Jul 2014

One can only hope, Bob.

Rep. Timothy Jones (r) and his birther friends have another bad day in court

24 Saturday Dec 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Birthers, lawsuit, missouri, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Obama, Timothy Jones

Thursday, at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals [pdf]:

FILED

DEC 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-56827

D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN

OPINION

[….] Representative CYNTHIA DAVIS, Missouri [….] State Representative TIMOTHY

JONES, Esq., Missouri [….]

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; MICHELLE L.R. OBAMA; HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Secretary of State; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Vice President and President of the Senate [….]

Defendants – Appellees.

Appellate cases are always an interesting read because there’s usually a succinct summary of what’s what:

Plaintiffs-Appellants contend that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. United States District Court Judge David O. Carter dismissed Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, for lack of standing. We affirm the dismissal for lack of standing, albeit on somewhat different reasoning than that of the District Court.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Well, that was short and to the point.

[….]

A.

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS: STANDING

[….]

3. State Representatives

Plaintiffs allege that state representatives have “unique standing” because they have a “special non-delegable constitutional right and responsibility to verify the qualifications of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America who is responsible for allocating large sums of [federal] funds, since receipt of funds from any officer without legal authority would be complicity in theft or conversion.”

In South Lake Tahoe, we rejected as insufficient to establish standing a similar contention that a public official could conceivably be exposed to civil liability while carrying out his official duties. 625 F.2d at 238-39. We noted that whether the officials could in fact be subject to civil liability was dependent on “multiple contingencies,” including the likelihood of any civil suit and the question whether the official would be immune from any such suit. Id. at 239. The alleged harm to the state representatives in this case is just as speculative and conjectural as in South Lake Tahoe, for similar reasons. This group of plaintiffs therefore fails to establish standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.

[….]

[footnote] 6 Plaintiffs never filed a motion for leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint and only mentioned in passing such a request in their motion for reconsideration, filed on November 9, 2009, after the District Court granted

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. [end footnote]

[….]

…noting that Plaintiffs had six months between the original complaint and the amended complaint to attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The District Court found Plaintiffs’ “failure to do so inexcusable.”

[….]

***

The District Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for lack of Article III standing. Moreover, the District Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ quo warranto, FOIA, or RICO claims. Accordingly, the dismissal by the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Appellants’ emergency petition for writ of mandamus, filed November 8, 2011, is DENIED.

[….]

COUNSEL

Gary G. Kreep, Ramona, California, and Orly Taitz, Rancho Santa Margarita, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

That reads a might testy.

It’s gonna be really interesting when Speker Elect Jones (r) takes over.

You don't pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel or electrons by the terabyte

30 Tuesday Aug 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jay Nixon, Joplin, lawsuit, missouri, Tom Schweich, Tony Messenger

Oh, boy. Pass the popcorn. It looks like Missouri State Auditor Tom Schweich (r) probably won’t assimilate this lesson.

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Post-Dispatch: Editorial: Auditor’s lawsuit values his budget over victims of Joplin tornado bit.ly/pVskRn 7 hours ago

Evidently the State Auditor doesn’t understand the optics. In today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Editorial: Auditor’s lawsuit values his budget over victims of Joplin tornado

Say this for Missouri Auditor Thomas Schweich: His audacity knows no bounds.

On Friday, Mr. Schweich, a Republican, sued Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, over how Mr. Nixon has chosen to balance the state’s budget.

On its surface, the action might seem like just another example of a politician who equates governance with campaigning, a typical attempt at blatant partisanship wrapped up in legal arguments weaker than a first-year law student’s paper written after an all-night bender….

…Missourians should be grateful that our constitution and our Legislature gave the governor the flexibility to respond to disasters. That same constitution gave Mr. Schweich a legitimate avenue to protest Mr. Nixon’s decisions: He could run for governor.

Good luck getting votes in Joplin.

[emphasis added]

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Did Schweich really hold presser to demand retraction on editorial about lawsuit he refused to talk about? Really? Good luck with that. 3 hours ago

Yep, there you have it, the best State Auditor money could buy.

@tonymess Tony Messenger

Schweich is right about the need for an apology on the editorial. I apologize to post-bender first-year law students. bit.ly/ocK2iq 3 hours ago

Okay, that left a mark.

Otto West: Don’t call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself.” And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

Voter Photo ID Ballot Proposal Faces Legal Challenge

07 Thursday Jul 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

lawsuit, missouri, SJR 2, suppression, voter ID

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

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • 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

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

  • 844,073 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...