Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Proof of Citizenship? Missouri Vies for the Worst Voting Law in the Country

By Art Levine, Huffington Post. Posted May 12, 2008.


Missouri lawmakers are rushing to pass a law that would, among other things, deny some nuns the right to vote.
Advertisement

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."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: republicans, election 2008, voting rights, id laws

Art Levine is a contributing editor of The Washington Monthly, and a Fellow with the Progressive Policy Insititute. He has also written for Mother Jones, The American Prospect, The New Republic, The Atlantic, Slate, Salon and numerous other publications.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

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:
Excellent article
Posted by: dnvergrl on May 13, 2008 4:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this article. What is next I am asking? I am truly enraged by what I have just read. If this passes in Missouri, where will it happen next? Which state's will follow suit? I certainly hope that the citizens of Missouri are able to see through this. I have been a subscriber to AlterNet for quite some time now, but this is the first time that I have commented on an article. Keep up the great reporting.
Thank you,
Helen C.

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

There's nothing wrong with requiring ID to vote
Posted by: rickiey on May 13, 2008 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But not accepting a texas driver's license, is completely moronic.

I'm a supporter of voter ID requirements, but the government seems to be intentionally doing it wrong.

1. You don't change the requirements immediately before the election. The rare people who don't have IDs already, deserve the time to go get them.

2. You have to make it possible to get an ID, for everyone that is actually a citizen.

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

Proof of citizenship is fair.
Posted by: HBoyer on May 13, 2008 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes it may remove some people from the rolls. But the political parties will come up with ways to get people registered.

I hope all states pass similar laws. In time those who want to vote will obtain the proper papers to vote.

But the next thing we have to do is have complete control of the electronic voting machines.

They are the biggest threat to honest elections.

We need to go back to paper ballots that are hand counted, with witness verification.

The last two elections have been the most corrupt elections in recent memory.

We cannot survive as a democracy if we don't insist on honest and fair elections.

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

» RE: Proof of citizenship is fair. Posted by: herronsmith
When Gov't proves the Results are legitmate, We'll start proving We are!
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 13, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most criminal of acts regarding Election Rigging and Fraud Begin and End in Legislation and SCOTUS Rulings.
I have not Beleived any Election results since REAGAN!! Hind Sight being 20/20 I know realize why 'Slick Willy' won in '92 (granted I voted for him, but I'm betting he was Thrown the Dem Nomination to begin with- like they are trying to do again with Hillary- Billy was just the First NeoCON Operative in Blue to have the machine work for Him- complicite with the Cheney Regimes Reign of Terror on this country, dating back to Nixon, they had to "Kill Off" Carter using the Iran Contra Scandal and their Media Whores). NAFTA was Slick Willy's 'Thank You' Basket to the Corps for Crowning Him King!
this time since they Think we are getting more savvy they have put more Horses in the Race so to HEDGE their Bets. Mac is an Puppet like Reagan and Hillary is Dick In Drag!

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

Much needed reform, but lets use common sense
Posted by: robbie.seal on May 13, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Proof of citizenship and photo ID is needed, even if there is little evidence that voter fraud has occured. If it happens, then we will all be up in arms because no one took the initiative to prevent it. That said, lets use some common sense.

Changing the registration laws right before an election is wrong. We all know it. Doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on. If you want to change the laws, set the date for enactment after the coming elections. That way no one will have an excuse for not knowing about the change or not having time to get the required docs.

They have similar requirements in GA, where I currently live. I had to get a drivers license (same place and requirements to register to vote) because I lost mine and had to produce several different forms of ID. I have been through this before but it still took me an entire day to get it done.

Set up a mechanism for those that do not have access to all of the required records, such as an affidavit signed by family members or community leaders and notarized. It took me a while to get my birth certificate the first time. The one I had was hand written and I'm not THAT old. It took me a couple of months to get one that would be accepted by officials. Don't think the elderly have more difficulty? My grandmother didn't have a birth certificate. She had a family Bible. She went by that date, but the government had a different date for her birth (two months difference).

The 240K number seems like a stretch, but the author did back it up better than some of the other articles I have read on this subject.

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

is it so hard to get a birth certificate and an ID??
Posted by: ptown on May 13, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is it so hard to get a birth certificate and an ID?? doesn't every county have a "vital statistics" department where they hold birth certificates dating back 100 years on microfiche?
i easily got mine from another state. and anyone can go to the DMV an get a state ID. what's the big deal? you need ID to cash a check or rent a video....uh, i don't get it.

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

Repugwican Nazi's at work
Posted by: james2021 on May 13, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is nothing more than the latest Repugwican effort to retain political power when faced with the prospect of returning to the position of Permanent Minority Party in the United States.

They will fail to control the vote, as they have shown the public what their real agenda is, and no amount of smoke and mirrors will save them.

They have been trying for 40 years to roll back the Voting Rights act passed in the 60's.

Time to elect polititians that are concerned with the electorate, rather than the Corporate rulers.

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

» RE: epugwican Nazi's at work Posted by: willymack
Make the Repugwicans pay for Voter IDs
Posted by: james2021 on May 13, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That will be a sure fire way to stop this particular Repugwican stragety.

Hit the Repugs where it hurts, in the fat wallets.

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

mainstreet
Posted by: mainstreet on May 13, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since there is no voter fraud in the State of Missouri, see this link: no voter fraud, and there MUST be a voter photo identification card, I suggest the following:

Use the current voter registration records as the basis for issuing the first round of Voter Photo ID cards, since these persons have already provided proof of eligibility to vote. These voters need to but go to their local Department of Motor Vehicles, have their picture affixed to their newly issued Voter Photo ID Card (at no charge) and be on their way.

After the 2008 elections, anyone who attempts to register to vote must go through the process of applying for a Voter Photo ID Card. The process seems a simple one to follow, at least to me.

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

Where are the MO Libertarians and Democrats on this issue?
Posted by: maxpayne on May 13, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After all, the party platform is correct to say that we shouldn't be making new and more bureaucratic laws but should instead be enforcing existing ones? I take it that MO residents were convinced that the GOP is the party of less government although this latest sham proves otherwise.

P.S.: There are enough IDs already. There's no point in burning more oil for more useless plastic cards anyway. As a matter of fact, let's do away with ID cards and switch to digital imaging and looking up. The Japanese are developing it. Why can't America? Oops, I forgot that there's "no money" to put that technology into play but there's always plenty to develop new bombs and WMDs !

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

Walks Like a Duck; Talks Like a Duck....
Posted by: ChicagoPaul on May 13, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we talking preventing vote fraud or are we talking vote(r) suppression? That's the key question.

What's the common ground? I'd say it would be something like fair and open elections, full and convenient participation for all citizens, every vote is counted - accurately, and every vote is reported accurately and in a timely fashion. (There may be additions to this list, but it gives us a start.)

Now, where are we now?

It seems to me the #1 and most widely reported problem is voting machines that don't work properly and/or have no backup or paper trail.

The #2 problem (at least during this primary season) seems to be along the lines of long lines, lack of ballots or capacity to handle the number of voters.

The #3 problems seems to center around the amount of time that polls are open on the actual balloting day and the inability of the working population (most of us) to get to the polls and to avoid the long lines that are a result of the limited amount of time that workers have to go to the polls. (A real Catch-22!)

Vote Fraud, something I'm sure could be an actual problem, doesn't seem to make it to the top of many lists. I certainly haven't heard deafening outcries of vote fraud in many years of elections, and I'm from Chicago, a town that (in some peoples' minds) is synonomous with vote fraud. This leaves us to wonder what the actual problem is.

I say, fix Probems 1, 2, and 3. Then, work on vote fraud.

I'm suspicious about the current push. Why is it that the Conservative Media and the Republicans so interested in finding solutions for a problem that doesn't exist?

In the past there have been Vote(r) Suppression efforts. In each of those efforts, the solution came before the problem. That's why the present effort "walks" and "talks" like Voter Suppression.

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

Disenfranchised Indiana nuns
Posted by: liberallibrarian on May 13, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Nuns being turned away at the polls" (by a fellow nun) may make for a catchy lead, but it's essentially bogus. Most, if not all, of the nuns turned away at St. Mary's College were registered voters over 65 and therefore eligible to vote absentee by mail, with no ID required. The ID requirement couldn't have been better advertised after the SCOTUS decision. If they decided to try to vote in person without the proper ID, it was either abysmal ignorance (an explanation I doubt) or an act of protest. The latter may have been well-intentioned but it attacks the wrong problem. Requiring an officially-issued ID is not unreasonable, setting the standards for getting that ID too high is. If, as the article suggests, too many citizens are unable to provide the needed documentation, then a common-sense way to assist them in doing so -- at little or no cost -- needs to be added to any voter-ID legislation. If that's not done, then (and only then) do we have grounds for charges of voter suppression.

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

Voter IDs
Posted by: EinMD on May 13, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not really seeing what the big disagreement is with voter ID's. The requirement that someone show a verifiable legal ID is perfectly reasonable to me. If the problem is that we're afraid this will impact the poor and elderly who can't afford them it's easy enough to set the system up so that anyone who can prove they were born here can get one for free or for reduced cost if they can prove a need.

Americans are all guaranteed the right to vote. But it's not like American citizens have a big 'A' tattooed on their heads at birth. The only way we know you're an American is if you can provide documentation. We don't need a bunch of Russian nationals who can speak decent English getting to vote in our election on some technicality because they can't present an ID.

and if the issue is Muslim women don't want to show their faces, no biggie. Their identity can easily be determined by other biometrics that are difficult to fake in the presence of another person watching you - fingerprints or retinal scans for example and it wouldn't require them showing their faces. Just because we (supposedly) respect all religions, faiths and atheism in this country doesn't mean you get to break the law or elevate yourself above everyone else because of your religious practices. So If they don't want to submit to that sort of thing, then they don't get to vote.

I think trying to impose this law/situation in an election year is basically just bullshit politics but the overriding idea seems ok to me and I'm not even a right wing Republican type. This isn't a complicated issue people are just making it complicated because politicians are trying to get advantage over each other.

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

» It would work Posted by: robbie.seal
How Many?
Posted by: joe2171 on May 13, 2008 3:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So how much of the state population of Missouri is it that we are talking about being turned away from the voting stations, I mean what percentage of the state population do these nuns actually represent, and as for the rest of the state population, how many of them are irresponsible enough not to be able to maintain a current state drivers license or ID, and do we want them voting at all if they actually are that irresponsible...I don't!

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

GET COMPULSORY VOTING
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 13, 2008 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If your politicians are SO corrupt that all they do is sit around coming up with new, evil and communistic ways to stop people from voting then YOU DON'T HAVE DEMOCRACY.

How the HELL does your country think it can "bring democracy" to ANYONE when you don't have it yourselves?

Pathetic. Truly pathetic.


Greatest Country in the World? I'm sure the Chinese/Russians/North Koreans feel exactly the same about their own countries. Welcome to an elite and "special" group.

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

» RE: GET COMPULSORY VOTING Posted by: ChicagoPaul
I'm an election Judge in MO
Posted by: Ogsball on May 13, 2008 6:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a very Republican area of the state. If this law passes I'm going to question every face-lifted, hair died republican that shows up with a drivers license picture that has them listed as 40lb lighter than they really are.

Gawd, it already take forever for us to get people looked up on the books with the ID laws we have now and even with that a bunch of the people in my area forget their ID.

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

Rove's man behind Missouri Voter ID law
Posted by: ThePublicRecord on May 14, 2008 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.pubrecord.org/

Bush Operative Pushes Voter-ID Law

By Jason Leopold
The Public Record
May 14, 2008

A senior legal adviser to the Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection campaign is working behind the scenes to help enact a Missouri state constitutional amendment that critics say would suppress the vote in the key battleground state this November by requiring voters to show proof of citizenship.

Mark “Thor” Hearne, Bush-Cheney’s national counsel in 2004 and now a partner in the St. Louis, Missouri, firm of Lathrop & Gage, has been collaborating with Missouri’s Republican state Rep. Stanley Cox, the sponsor of the constitutional amendment, Cox’s office confirmed this week.

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

Walks in Storms
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 15, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And Mr. Levine is concerned for the Franciscan nuns, right? All those people who will have to go through the enormous difficulty of getting a valid ID? Sure. It's all wrong because some of it is wrong? That's called the fallacy of devision and it's typically dishonest (I happen to have read a great deal of Mr. Levine's remarks concerning illegal immigration) - or stupid.

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

You reap what you sow
Posted by: FernLee on May 17, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the risk of sounding like a conservative Republican, the nuns got what they deserve. Let's face it: you know that they ALWAYS vote Republican because they're homophobic and would sooner see a woman or girl die in childbirth than have an abortion. So, now they're not happy with their Republican legislature? While I think this proposed amendment is horrific, they should THINK next time they vote. That is, if they're allowed to.

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

DEMOCKERY
Posted by: chiefwanadubie on May 18, 2008 10:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DEMOCRACYS are dependant on freedom of speech, and unrestricted voting rights!!! America has a tainted, biased, monopolized, and censored media!!! In Missouri, the government believes that they have the right to cast out the competition, without a vote of the people at all. I was kicked right off of the ballot for governor of Missouri, because I'm a convicted felon!!! Governor Matt Blunt, signed the bill after I threw my hat in the ring for governor, just after I lost the '06 race for state representative!!! My opponent Jason smith co-sponsored a bill in '06, to have me disqualified from the race, with a bill that would forbid convicted felons from running for office, but it was found unconstitutional!!! while most Americans will still have the right to vote, they can only vote for the choice of whom they(the powers that be) have approved !!! Add that to restricting the voters, and you have a DEMOCKERY!!!

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

why not?
Posted by: Bearzerker on May 19, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... why is asking for proof of voting rights a bad thing?...
this swings both ways imho and the only way to ensure fairness is being practiced is to have a non-political voter registration board thats responsible for registering all voters in a district...
[not one for repubs and another for democrats]
Let them nominate their candidates within parties however they want... but on actual election day thats something that has to be monitored by a non-political branch of the government! [justice maybe?]

this would simplify all voting I would think...

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

You Americans are funny!
Posted by: bonzi on May 19, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, you Americans pretend not to have universal photo ID (and are terrified that most European countries do), while in fact you do (driver's license). What if you don't drive? Do DMVs issue "non-driver's licenses"? Why DMV? To mask the fact that it is simply an ID?

Then, you pretend that you don't require the citizens to have an universal ID number. Of course you do - SSN. Yes, you can avoid it, but then you avoid what is left of social security services.

Then, the state pretends it does not know who its citizens are. Why people have to register for vote themselves? Isn't there some kind of citizenship registry?

In most of Europe a person is entered into electoral roll, military draft roll (if there is one) etc. (let's not forget those lists used by your friendly local tax people) as soon as they come of age; in the meantime, they are in citizenship registry. Usually a birth certificate is required to obtain the first official photo ID, which is used to prove both citizenship and identity from then on, but there are procedures for cases when birth registry books are lost or destroyed (say, in a war or natural catastrophe).

Voters generally have to prove their identity using official ID card or passport. On the other side, removing a voter from the electoral roll or interfering with voting rights in any other way is a felony.

We also prefer old-fashioned paper votes. They are slower to count, but everybody understands them and with rather elaborate procedure and very wide base from which poll officials and observers come (and who watch each other like hawks), fraud or even error is virtually impossible.

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