After Indiana ID Ruling: Missouri Rushes to Pass Worst Voting Law

Missouri's Republican-controlled legislature is rushing to pass one of the country's most draconian voter ID requirements less than two weeks after the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's similarly restrictive photo ID law -- a law that's best known for serving as a vital bulwark against nuns voting. Missouri trumps that: It now seems that the state that brought us the likes of GOP anti-voting fraud zealot "Thor" Hearne and became "Ground Zero" for GOP vote suppression schemes in 2006 could take the brass ring from Florida and Ohio as the state most hostile to its own voters' rights.

There's a good reason that the Republicans are moving so quickly to pass a proposed constitutional amendment that could thwart at least 240,000 Missouri citizens from voting in November. The state is a presidential battleground state where recent gubernatorial and Senate races have been decided by margins as little as 21,000 votes.

"If you exclude 240,000 people from the electorate, that is plenty to swing the election in Missouri," says John Hickey, the executive director of the Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition (ProVote). He and other advocates are urging Missouri residents to contact their legislators to protest.

Last week, the House passed a resolution on a strict party-line vote that would place a constitutional amendment on the ballot demanding documentary requirements to vote. It is now up for debate in the state senate and could go before voters as early as August. An amendment to the state constitution is necessary since the legislature's 2006 voter ID was struck down by the Missouri Supreme Court.

The vaguely-worded amendment will, if approved by voters, permit the legislature to enact laws requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and current photo ID to cast a ballot. By blocking tens of thousands of U.S. citizens from either registering or voting, Missouri's pending bill could become, if passed, the toughest law in the country. Only five states require voters to show government-issued photo ID to vote and just one state -- Arizona -- requires would-be voters to prove their citizenship, according to research by Project Vote.

The resolution's sponsor, State Rep.Stanley Cox, is peddling the claim that this demand for photo ID was "not taking away rights."

"When anybody fraudulently votes, it diminishes all of our votes," he said last week when the resolution passed the state House. But there hasn't been a single proven case of voter impersonation at the polls in the state's history. And based on the experience of Arizona, between seven and 30 percent of citizens lack the citizenship documentation needed to register to vote.

But protecting voters from fraud isn't the real goal of this measure - it's just helping GOP officials hold on to political power by blocking Democratic-leaning voters, critics say. "Their spin is that the elections are overrun with fraud," says the non-partisan Missouri ACORN's legislative director, Julie Terbrock. "But this measure effectively disenfranchises all these voters," she says, citing the Secretary of State's report on citizens without ID.

At a fair-election coalition press conference at the League of Women Voters' headquarters in Jefferson City, a few nuns came forward to express their concerns that the Catholic sisters in their convents lack the required ID. In fact, before the news conference, Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary in St. Louis reported the results of an informal survey of nuns in her order."Fifteen [of 35 voters] did not have state-issued photo IDs," she observed. "This may sound like a good idea at first, but once you stop to think about who would really be affected, this is going to keep a lot of our loved ones from being able to vote."

The strict documentary requirements can be hard for Missouri nuns and other senior citizens, even married women of all ages, in obtaining their birth certificates. A survey by NYU's Brennan Center for Justice found that 52 percent of married woman don't have a birth certificate in their current name, and 17 percent of citizens age 65 and over don't have access to any citizenship documents.

At the press conference, Lillie Lewis, an elderly African-American woman, told how she struggled to get a birth certificate in order to secure a state-issued photo ID under the state's rigid "Show Me Proof" law passed in 2005. "I have tried everything to get a copy of my birth certificate," Lewis said, "but Mississippi says they have no record of my birth." So she likely won't be able to obtain a new driver's license, and, as a result, she declared, "My right to vote will be denied."

She was joined at the press conference by the Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who strongly opposed the previous photo ID law. "As Missouri's chief elections official, it's my job to ensure fair elections, and elections cannot be fair if eligible voters are not allowed to vote," said Carnahan. "What we heard today is that getting copies [of the documents needed to obtain a government ID] can be costly, time consuming and sometimes impossible."

The harsh reality of disenfranchisement has already been felt in Arizona, with its sweeping proof-of-citizenship registration requirement passed as part of the anti-immigrant Proposition 200 referendum in 2004. According to Arizona ACORN's Monica Sanschafer, who is heading up an effort to help 20,000 Arizonans register to vote, they have seen the effectiveness of their voter registration efforts cut in half because between 10 percent and 30 percent of low-income and minority citizens don't have the documents needed to register. The law, which has led to more than 38,000 voter registration applications being rejected, is now being challenged in court.

On top of all that, confusing ID requirements and poorly trained poll workers lead to countless voters being turned away: "It's a crapshoot which polling place workers will allow you to vote," notes Linda Brown of the Arizona Advocacy Network.

"All the discourse here is about immigration," Sandschafer observes. "But we're really talking about Arizonans who are Americans and whose legal right to vote is being denied. And while Latino citizens are hit hard, we're finding that all Arizonans are at risk of being disenfranchised by this requirement."

Perhaps no one knows that as well as 97-year-old Shirley Freeda Preiss. She was born at home in Clinton, Kentucky in 1910, before women had the right to vote, and never had a birth certificate. Shirley has voted in every presidential election since FDR first ran in 1932, and proudly describes herself as a "died-in-the-wool Democrat." After living in Arizona for two years, she was eagerly looking forward to casting her ballot in the February primary for the first major woman candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. But lacking a birth certificate or even elementary school records to prove she's a native-born American citizen, the state of Arizona's bureaucrats determined that this former school-teacher who taught generations of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"I have a constitutional right to vote, don't I?" she asks with her soft Southern drawl. "I didn't get to vote because of a birth certificate. What am I going to do now?"

Her strong-willed 78-year-old son, Nathan "Joey" Nemnich, a World War II veteran, is infuriated. "I'm pissed. She's an American citizen who worked her whole life and I want her to vote," he says. He went down to the local Motor Vehicle Division to get her an Arizona ID and register her to vote, armed with copies of his mother's three drivers' licenses from her previous home in Texas, along with copies of her Social Security and Medicare cards. All that wasn't good enough for the state of Arizona. "The sons of bitches are taking away our Constitution," Nemnich says.

In Arizona and now as seems likely in Missouri, Kafkaesque rules blend with right-wing ideology to block American citizens like Shirley Preiss from voting, collateral damage in the Republican-led war on democracy. "I was very disappointed," she says of the state's roadblocks to voting. "It's not acceptable. I've always voted."

**********************************
You can hear "Joey" Nemnich tell about his fight for his mother's voting rights in Arizona and a Missouri voting rights advocate report on the ID fight there, along with more about this year's election controversies, on "The D'Antoni and Levine Show," with my co-host Tom D'Antoni, a Huffington Post blogger, this Thursday at 5:30 p.m., EST, at BlogTalk Radio

*****************************
UPDATE: The Missouri Senate committee today passed the bill on a party-line vote moving the photo ID forward. Project Vote's page at Daily Kos has regular updates on the fight to protect voting rights in Missouri and elsewhere. And Brad Friedman has an in-depth, scathing look at the role of Thor Hearne in pushing this and similar draconian bills forward here and across the United States -- and his central role in manipulating legislators, the Justice Department, and even the supposedly respected Carter-Baker commission that endorsed photo ID.

Here's how Thor Hearne's scheming handiwork to keep Democratic-leaning voters from exercising their voting rights plays out in the real lives of American citizens, as shown at today's hearing:

After majority Republicans enacted a photo ID mandate in 2006, Kathleen Weinschenk sued on grounds that it would effectively disenfranchise her. The Missouri Supreme Court struck down the law as a heavy burden on voting rights, citing the state constitution.

Missouri Republicans revived their photo ID efforts after the U.S. Supreme Court last month upheld a similar Indiana identification requirement, based on the federal constitution.

Weinschenk, 65, of Columbia, has cerebral palsy, uses a wheelchair and has difficulty speaking and writing. She doesn't have a driver's license. To obtain a free state identification card under the 2006 law, she first would have needed to pay to get a copy of her birth certificate from Arkansas and her marriage certificate for Missouri, showing that her birth name had been changed.

The state Supreme Court likened the costs of those underlying documents to an illegal poll tax.

"I urge you to let sleeping dogs lie. This law is not good for the hardworking people of Missouri," Weinschenk said in written comments that were read by her companion to the committee. "In this time of economic hardship, do not put another burden on the people of Missouri."

Comments

[tbone99]

The fire was at the state house.

[tbone99]

It took us FORTY YEARS to get my mothers' birth certificate because records had been burned in a fire between the time she was born and needed it.To get a delayed birth certificate it took notarized testimonies from 3 witnesses that knew her as the child of her mother and father.By then she lived in another state so a couple weeks off and travel were required.F­ortunately there were still witnesses over 80 still around! And fortunate too, they she grew up in a relatively small stable community as a child where she was remembered, not all are so lucky.

There are million stories in the naked city , this is only one of them.

[Researchguy66]

I feel really awful for all of those people too stupid or lazy to get a copy of their birth certificate, which conincidentally you need to prove right to work on the I-9 form anyway. Hmmm...no I don't.

[mooph]

Um ... there are a number of documents that one can present for an I-9 form -- the most popular combination is a Driver's License and a Social Security Card.

Then again, there are people who don't work or drive, are disabled, have lost these forms of identification, etc who would potentially be disenfranchised by this ridiculous and unnecessary law.

You know what I don't feel bad for -- your taxes.

[UnbiasView]

I'd rather use my tax money to make sure that there isn't voter fraud rather than allow Senators to use my money for wild turkey and teapot museums.

[sdskelton03]

Mr. Levine

I would first recommend you look up the word "draconian" in a dictionary. I think you will find it means something entirely different from a word that could describe this Missouri law.

I don't think it is too much to ask someone to produce at least as much documentation to vote as it would take to rent a movie from Blockbuster.

As for the argument of there not being a single proven case of fraudulent voting, I would as "how would a case ever be proven?" We know of thousands of fraudulent registrations, are we to believe that none of them ever voted? All one must do to fraudulently vote is stand in line, say you are someone else and sign close enough to the mark on the registration card to fool a geriatric election judge.

I think we are fools to believe that is not happening!

[mooph]

Voting is a right of every citizen. Renting a movie at Blockbuster is a commercial transaction -- and Blockbuster, as a company, can make rules regarding the requirements for that transaction.

Stupid comparison.

And by the way,
Dra·co (drā'kō) Athenian politician who codified the laws of Athens (c. 621). Lauded for its impartiality, his code was unpopular for its severity.

[UnbiasView]

I think the point is that if you don't have an ID these days . . . WTF are you doing with your life because you don't have a bank account, you can't rent a movie or even buy a pack of smokes.

[Angelus2007]

Yes, he used draconion improperly suggesting that the laws were unfair. While draconian as your definition points out, is an impartial (fair) law that is extremely severe. An example would be all who tresspass have their legs cut off. Fair, but extreme. This law as the author sees it is unfair, therefor not draconian.

[BradF]

I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that renting movies from Blockbuster was a protected Constitutional right, and the cornerstone of our representative democracy.

Yes, these laws are draconian and meant to do only one thing: keep legal, Democratic-leaning voters from being able to cast their legal ballot.

If you are a "fool to believe that is not happening", then so is the Bush DoJ who has made an uprecedented effort in order to find such fraud (to little or no avail: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?ei=5088&en=277feccfa099c7d0&ex=1334030400&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1197490509-kQxLoEru+cH9aetsLB6CnA)

Furthermore, Art did not say there is not a "single proven case of fraudulent voting". He said that Indiana admitted there has never been a case of in-person voter impersonation at the polling place, of the type this law was purported to deter.

In the meantime, voter fraud does occur, largely via absentee balloting, and there is no Photo ID requirements for casting those. Of course, more Republicans vote that way than do Democrats, so go figure.

[sdskelton03]

You are correct, renting movies is not a constitutional right. However, the renting of movies is not nearly as important as fair elections.

AS far as the "in-person" part goes...see my comments above. How difficult would it be to drive precinct to precinct and vote over and over again. Had one had the forethought to register in a different name in each voting precinct, I would say there would be absolutely nothing to stop someone from doing just that.

[UnbiasView]

I really don't understand why liberals cry about voter ID laws? I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to prove that they are a US citizen before voting.

A US citizen cannot vote in Mexico without an ID but a Mexican could vote in our elections without an ID . . . interesting.

[mooph]

Citizenship is checked when people REGISTER to vote, isn't it?

[UnbiasView]

Nope, I know in Minnesota all you need is a utility bill that has an address on from the past 30 days.

If I wanted to I probably could have voted 30 times in one day.

[BradF]

Yes. Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires ID when registering, or otherwise at the polls when first voting if one registered by mail without ID.

[BradF]

They could, I suppose, but they don't, and it would be very easy to catch them, and throw them in jail for the 5 years they would receive for casting such an illegal vote.

40 years ago the Supreme Court turned down a $1.50 poll tax, so why did they allow a law that would require some to pay $12 for a birth certificate (for which you need a Photo ID to get!) or $100 for a passport (for which you need a birth certificate to get)?

Because they, like you, don't seem to give a damn about the Constitution, and the right to vote that so many have died for in our country and overseas. Shame on you.

[UnbiasView]

I care about American's right to vote, not Mexican's right to vote in American elections. If you really cared about getting actually results in an election for once I can't see how you would want to promote the fact that people that aren't American can vote in our elections and dillute your vote.

0.3% of registered voters in Indiana don't have an ID . . . it's not that big of a problem.

[LouisPWu]

Republicans will stoop to anything to seize and hold power. Disenfranchising citizens because their 'papers are not in order' smacks of Nazism.

[UnbiasView]

You need an ID to take $10 out of the bank, you need an ID to get on an airplane . . . if you are an adult and don't have a valid ID, you probably don't deserve to vote.

[BradF]

Actually, that's not true. You don't need a state-issued ID to either board a plen or take $10 out of the bank. (Of course, you're presuming that voters have $10 in the bank, which is not necessarily the case either).

[Rescisco]

When elections have to be won by preventing people from voting we are talking about real election fraud.

[UnbiasView]

On the other hand, are elections lost because some 14 million illegals can cast a vote without proving they are a US citizen?

[Rescisco]

No. This is just another "straw dog" invented to distract us.

[BradF]

Nope. If you have evidence to demonstrate the case you made above, please let the DoJ know, because in a 7 year hunt for it, they haven't found any.

[SoCalRefugee]

On the other hand, I hope the Republicans aren't depending on this too much to twist the electorate in their favor. There are an awful lot of "trailer park appalachian whites" that would probably have a lot of difficulty meeting these new voter requirements as well.

[UnbiasView]

What percent of trailor park whites don't have an ID? They need one for their truck with a confederate flag.

[dumboldfarmer]

The problem isn't as much an ID requirement as it is a poll tax, which is illegal. If you have to pay to get it, you are having to pay for the right to vote. Period. And, of course there is the timing issue. If it takes longer to get the ID than when the election takes place, you are disenfranchised. There could be lawsuits about bureaucratic foot-dragging depending upon which party is in power and handling the requests. It is an open license for fraud.

[Researchguy66]

For that matter, getting to the poll is a poll tax. Should we require that election officials go door-to-door? Wait, that requires that people have doors, another poll tax... What about the requirement that people be alive to vote? Isn't that an awully large poll tax given the cost of life-sustaining care?

You can get a birth certificate in Missouri for $15. In my home state of PA, it's only $10...

[BradF]

The Supreme Court previously turned down a $1.50 poll tax. So to allow a law that would require $15 or $10 is ridiculous. Even though Indiana gives away free state issued ID's (if you can afford to drive to get one, and can afford the $12 for a birth certificate, which requires you to have a Photo ID, btw!) there is a cost associated with getting them, and it disenfranchised voters, despite not a single incidence of in-person polling place impersonation, as the state admitted, and as the law was purportedly meant to deter.

No, driving door-to-door is not necessary to have people vote. ALL citizens must either get to the polls, or vote absentee. It's the lack of equal protection (allowing some voters to vote, simply because they are lucky enough to have a drivers license in that particular state), which makes such laws unConstitutional.

The Supreme Court, obviously, no longer cares about such things.

[cla62]

What a travesty. Actually having to prove that you are who you say you are at the voting booth. Those damn republicans. The nerve.

[1will]

I agree. Those Republicans must think voting is almost as important as cashing a check or renting a hotel room. What a burden it is to show an ID.

[SoCalRefugee]

I'm happy your (most likely) middle-class self finds it so easy to use an ID. Unfortunately, there are large segments of the population that do not drive and have never had a reason to have an ID, or were born before it was common to be born in hospitals and have poor documentation of their birth.

These sort of things are always about the balance between ease of registration and capacity for fraud. It should be noted that actual voter fraud convictions are conspicuous in their absence in the US, which makes it difficult to argue this is a widespread problem. Moreover, under what circumstances do most people register to vote? Often at voter registration drives, which become infinitely more difficult when people have to provide particular documentation they may not have in order to submit their registration.

[SoCalRefugee]

Also, this is clearly about more than ID. The article quotes the woman who has drivers licenses from previous states, etc and is still not able to register to vote.

[BradF]

You don't need a state-issued photo ID for doing any of those things. But thanks for repeating the propaganda you've been delivered w/out bothering to check it out for accuracy first. Par for the course, I suppose, for folks who don't care about American values such as democracy and the U.S. Constitution.

[Lemeritus]

"...protecting voters from fraud isn't the real goal of this measure - it's just helping GOP officials hold on to political power by blocking Democratic-leaning voters...."

Did anyone really think it was anything else?????

[sdskelton03]

As a matter of fact, I think it is to prevent people from voting early and often.

[BradF]

Nope. There are no instances of in-personal voter impersonation in the history of Indiana.

Sorry. Your propaganda doesn't work. But keep trying. It's only your democracy at stake.

[SamThornton]

The key to this is the nutty Supreme Court decision. And the key to the nutty decision are the nutty justices currently on the court. Make no mistake, they will continue to dragoon the Constitution and Bill of Rights as long as they hold their positions. It probably won't be enough to appoint a couple of less nutty attorneys to the court, given the age/ideological composition of the court.

It's Congress that has the Constitutional authority to change this immediately in 2009 by expanding the number of Supreme Court justices, thus allowing a President Obama to make some wise appointments to change the court's nutty imbalance.

The justices themselves have been complaining for years that their workload is too heavy and have asked for relief on numerous occasions. Increasing the number of slots on the SC from the current nine to, for example, fifteen, solves that problem, as well as the problem of the court's screwed up composition.

[cla62]

The only problem is that their won't be a president Obama so your theory is very moot.

[TRUE BLUE AMERICAN]

Simple- get the I.D. and vote. You would think with the illegal problem in this country, along with the fraud that takes place, everyone would be behind this.

[maddie0001]

Maybe you should read the article, the woman had a Texas drivers license, a social security card and a medicare card. Still not good enough for the state of Arizona.

obey your robot master -- http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_are_we_giving_the

[lisakaz2]

Did you read the article? The state ID wasn't enough. The woman was born at home in 1910 and they wanted a birth certificate. She didn't have it. I'm kinda surprised that previous voting record isn't proof.

[1will]

Easy there fella. Remember where you are and keep that common sense to yourself. Only when felons, illegal aliens and the deceased are allowed to fraudulently vote will are country truly be free from tyranny.

[Nyland8]

It's interesting that Republicans are not embarrassed by having the well earned reputation as being anti-democratic. Their record of voter suppression incidences are legion, and the press makes no mention of it. They know that, historically, when voter turnout is high, Democratic candidates win - and vice versa. The more people who vote, the less likely a Republican will win the election. That's what the data shows.

So why isn't this more highly publicized by the MSM? What do they stand to gain by voter suppression?

8

[TRUE BLUE AMERICAN]

Niles- making sure that the people voting are indeed eligible to vote is not anti-democratic. It's smart. The MSM knows this and that is why they don't go after the story.Fraud happens in both parties and the I.D. card helps stop it.

[lisakaz2]

You think these elderly women are frauds?

[anonevent]

Did you miss the part about NO documented instances of voter fraud? It might be beneficial if they were actually trying to block a problem. But they are doing exactly the same thing that southern states did by implementing the poll tax, or the reading requirement: disenfranchise a large group of people. And the evidence of this not taking into account those people who were never issued birth certificates or requiring women to prove that their names had legally changed due to marriage.

I could see this as an argument for men and women not getting married. Wouldn't that really torque the conservatives.

[BradF]

Really? Where's your evidence for that? BEcause Bush's DoJ has yet been able to find it (and believe me, they've tried http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?ei=5088&en=277feccfa099c7d0&ex=1334030400&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1197490509-kQxLoEru+cH9aetsLB6CnA).

In the meantime, no such polling place voter fraud has occurred in Indiana's state history, as they admitted.

Where such fraud does occur, it's not at the polling place, it's via absentee, and this law does not affect absentee voting.

In other words, the law is a scam to keep Democratic-leaning voters from being able to cast their legal vote.

I'm sorry to see you're against democracy and the U.S. Constitution.