This is another attempt to restrict voters’ rights to redress grievances with the GOP Legislature that has spent the last four years giving away the store to favored contributors, insurance companies, healthcare providers, and utilities or whatever Andy Blunt clients have wanted.

The provision requiring voter registration of petition signature gatherers for non-party and for only other petitions has no rational basis for the distinction, disenfranchises some Missouri voters in violation of the Misouri Constitution and, to the degree it bans the use of and movement of workers from other states to Missouri to be employed at gathering signatures , it may run afoul of the Commmerce Clause of the US Constitution.

This is just another GOP bill which will run up attorney’s fees for the state to pay to have a civil liberties group invalidate the statute. I propose a law which takes the amount of attorney’s fees paid by the state in losing these types of suits directly from the individual legislators who sponsor and vote for such ridiculous laws, including the Governor if he signs the bill into law. Such fees, when reduced to judgment, should be exempt from discharge in bankruptcy and also be deducted from legislators’ pensions or healthcare benefits, and be a lien on any legislator’s property.

Timbo, it’s been stated in here before that you’re an attorney.

I’d ask what kind of attorney you are, but it seems pretty obvious that you’re just not much of one.

I’m just wondering what class in law school teaches whining and complaining about everything republican?

Actually, Jim, lawyers as a group tend to favor Democrats, especially as wealth has become less important in influencing how one votes. Campaign contributions by lawyers, and especially by PACs affiliated with lawyers’ groups (especially plaintiff lawyers) are overwhelmingly Democrat.

Tim Hogan, yap, yap, yap, yap … uh … can I wake up now?

On a more serious note … it seems to me that with electronic voting, there is no longer any reason to restrict ballot access at all. When we had to fit all the candidates on a paper ballot of limited size, sure, that was an issue. Now, it’s no issue at all, we can have a hundred people running for alderman and it won’t cost any more than the time it takes somebody at the board of election to type the names into the computer. The only reason to restrict ballot access now is that the incumbent party wants to keep people like Mr. Ferguson out of power.

Focus. Comment 9 may have gotten lost in all the confusion, but it’s pertinent: This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with ballot access! All the words quoted in Comment 10 are limited by the context that the requirements apply only to petitions for ballot measures by initiative (the the stem cell proposition) or referendum (a seldom used procedure for people to repeal an action by the legislature).