Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Missouri Amendment Would Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote

Posted by Attaturk, Firedoglake at 6:58 AM on May 12, 2008.


The Missouri Secretary of State estimates the amendment, if passed, would disenfranchise up to a quarter million citizens.

Here's to you Milliard Fillmore, the nation's Lou Dobbs viewers turn their bitter eyes to you!

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its execrable decision allowing more strict voter identification at the polls, though no evidence of widespread voter fraud has ever been produced, the nativist still do not think it is enough. Now, it is about disenfranchisement of groups that vote against conservative agendas and nothing less.

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.

The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.

How bad is Missouri's plan, pretty damn bad:

The Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who opposes the measure, estimated that it could disenfranchise up to 240,000 registered voters who would be unable to prove their citizenship.

In most of the states that require identification, voters can use utility bills, paychecks, driver’s licenses or student or military ID cards to prove their identity. In the Democratic primary election last week in Indiana, several nuns were denied ballots because they lacked the required photo IDs.

Measures requiring proof of citizenship raise the bar higher because they offer fewer options for documentation. In most cases, aspiring voters would have to produce an original birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport.

So how many of you walk around with your birth certificate, how many of you actually have a passport, how many of you carry it around with you?

And yet, apparently on the suspicion of a poll watcher, these requirements may be instituted. I am guessing in a lot of places that standard will be applied real uniformly...in favor of white people.

And not only is this loathsome proposal the progeny of bad Supreme Court law, it is being used in a way that truly will appeal to the latent xenophobe, it would be put up to referendum in Missouri before the election, a crucial swing state, to ensure as many otherwise non-motivated bigots rush to the polls to vote.

Sponsors of the amendment — which requires the approval of voters to go into effect, possibly in an August referendum — say it is part of an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from affecting the political process. Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship.

So an effort to sneak it in, before the November elections with the hopes of disqualifying a quarter-million eligible overwhelmingly non-Republican voters.

Surely the thing so many people have died for...restricting the vote by being a dick.


Suit: Paralyzed Man Dragged From Car and Beaten by Chicago Cops
Members of special tactical unit had been sued for brutality in the past.
Post by Joshua Holland. July 25, 2008.
MoveOn.org, ColorOfChange.org and NAS to Protest FOX's Racism in NYC
ColorOfChange.org and MoveOn.org Members To Deliver More Than 600,000 petition signatures to FOX headquarters in Manhattan.
Post by AlterNet Staff. July 22, 2008.
Dead Black Man Was Tasered Nine Times by White Cop
Who happens to like using his Taser quite a bit.
Post by Steven D.. July 22, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Pay Up Or Shut Up
Posted by: QQOblivion on May 12, 2008 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wouldn't requiring proof of citizenship cost the state MONEY? I mean, here in Colorado we have a requirement that anyone trying to get monetary aid from the state must first prove their citizenship. Well, it turns out that the requirement has cost MORE money to administer than is saved by denying aid to illegal immigrants.

I keep hearing from Republicans how they want to "spend less" and save our tax money, even if doing so will lead to the deaths of 10s of thousands of Americans (such as in the case of Republicans not wanting to extend SCHIP).
But NOW it is fine to spend (waste) tax-money, if doing so will serve the Republicans' aims. This is PROOF of the real reason why Republicans want to help deny people the right to vote -- to throw elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Standard of proof?
Posted by: luzmejor on May 12, 2008 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was breathtakingly rapid, wasn't it, the steps from "undocumented" aliens to undocumented citizens?

There is a remedy, folks, and it is our own US Constitution. The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the citizen is illegally voting. To do that, the feds will need to hire a lot of people to search through public records which would have to be open to their view.

My guess is that the prying rats will scurry quickly away from this potential for us to find out more about them!

Everything else is just suspicion without evidence. We still have Habeas Corpus to protect us because the president alone cannot declare it null and void. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Standard of proof? Posted by: WWMD
Don't Get Your Shorts In A Twist!
Posted by: WWMD on May 12, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Almost every nation on Earth requires proof of eligibility to vote in order to fill out a ballot. The United States is absolutely no exception to the world-wide norm.

If you were too young to vote in the election of 2000, let me share some recent realities with you. During the disputes that came about after the voting was over, it came to light that immigrants -both legal and otherwise- had voted unlawfully. A number of citizens admitted to voting multiple times in several different precincts by showing up at each one and fraudulently filling out "affidavits of voter eligibility" so that they could throw the election to their candidate. Several people got their dead parents' voter registration cards and voted on behalf of their dearly departed. Snowbirds voted by absentee ballot in their home states and then left their trailer courts to vote again in person in Florida and Arizona.

Some of those fraudulent votes were cast by Republicans, and some were cast by Democrats. If we'd been fortunate enough to have a Socialist run for president that year, Socialists would probably have cheated, too.

Those of us who did vote were absolutely outraged at the magnitude of fraudulent voting in 2000, and we demanded that the government take steps to eliminate it. We did, and still do, feel that it was a moral imperative for the protection of American democracy.

So, stop getting your shorts in a twist over imaginary fascist/racist oppression by our truly fascist/racist government and get yourselves a damned passport! You'll need it to get back home after you've been to Cozumel for Spring Break, anyway.

Left-wing and loving it,
WWMD

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perfectly Legitimate
Posted by: pdxstudent on May 12, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The law disenfranchises nobody. The democratic franchise is for the polity as defined by citizenship! It is not asking too much that citizens provide, at minimum, a birth certificate for the handful of times they vote every year. If they have lost one, as citizens they can order new ones! Official and clean even.

I'm surprised that anyone would have a problem with this , since it gives more overhead to the voting process that is desperately needed. If you're not a citizen of a polity, then what business do you have governing it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It could be a catch-22 for some Posted by: xconservative
» RE: It could be a catch-22 for some Posted by: xconservative
You gotta have one to get one.
Posted by: callistocat on May 13, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Missouri, and it often amazes me how ridiculous and backwards the state I love is. Sure, I have this paperwork, but I'm a working person with a passport, etc. My passport is in my safe deposit box at the bank, not in my possession. I can go to the bank to get it before election day, but at my precinct up till now I just brought in the voter information card they mailed me, and signed my name.

I don't know Missouri's exact requirements for getting these documents, but I work in the neighboring state of Illinois. One of the things I do in my job is help poor, elderly or homeless people try to get enough identification to get an ID. Sometimes a disaster, like a house fire or something, destroyed all their paperwork. Sometimes they were robbed. For people who are disabled, elderly, or otherwise not part of the workforce, it is really difficult to get the paperwork.

A Birth Certificate costs about $15 and takes weeks to get. I have regularly had problems getting a birth certificate for an elderly black client whether their birth occurred at home or at a hospital. I've also had problems with getting them for non-elderly people born in rural areas. To get a duplicate social security card, you have to have a picture ID. To get a picture ID, you have pay $20 and have numerous pieces of paper for proof of identity, proof of residence, proof of date of birth, proof of social security number, etc.

We have one guy who was approved for Social Security Disability but can't get into the social security office to finish the process so they can start paying him because he doesn't have a picture ID. Can't get the ID without a social security card, can't get a social security card without the ID. We're still trying to help him get the proper documents.

I read somewhere that they have found that maybe 4 out of every 100,000 votes could be "fraudulent", but that includes folks who do things like vote in their old precinct after they've moved because they didn't get their registration switched in time. That's still an eligible voter, and unless they're voting for their city alderman, the effect of their vote is the same. This is 100% an attempt to reduce the voting of elderly, disabled, black, brown, poor, or other historically democratic voters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You gotta have one to get one. Posted by: munchkinpup
They sure don't like us voting do they. Notice how seldom the chance
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on May 13, 2008 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
comes up and how little you get to decide. We still need a national initiative petition law. In fact it needs to be a constitutional amendment. If I'm wrong I'll apologize.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GOOD
Posted by: mindtrvlr on May 14, 2008 5:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All states should be like this. Period....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]