Missouri is such a queer place. People here want to use the state constitution for the funniest reasons. What a travesty that a document that is supposed to guarantee rights has been so misused and abused to discriminate against minorities.

Anyone who thinks it such a horrible burden to provide something as trivial as an id before they vote doesn’t deserve to vote in the first place. When someone commits fraud to cast a vote in an election, it diminishes the power of each legitimate vote in the community by diluting them. Fraudulent voting perverts the results, and worse, it instills a mistrust of the democratic processes that undergird our Republic. For a party that wet itself in 2001 with false charges of stolen elections, fighting against a simple and reasonable measure that helps ensure fairness seems, well, stupid.

Go Fish a lot of people can fall through the photo ID cracks. Here’s an example;

“Russell Baughman, 61, has fought in three conflicts as a part of the United States Army. He was on the front lines in Vietnam in March of 1967 during a battle that has since become known as “the bloodiest week.” He was sent to Panama shortly after the 1989 U.S. invasion as part of a security maintenance force. And he spent six months in the deserts of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during the Gulf War in the early ’90s.

His military discharge papers feature a paragraph’s worth of honors and awards, like the national defense service medal, the Vietnam service medal with two bronze service stars, the combat/infantry badge and a purple heart for being wounded during combat.

So when Baughman arrived at his polling place at precinct 52 in Lawrence March 11 for the special election, he wasn’t expecting to have a problem voting in the country he had defended.

But since Indiana passed its new Voter ID law, which requires every voter to have a valid, government-issued photo ID, Baughman’s identification was no longer good enough.

He had with him his expired driver’s license (he rides a bicycle), his Department of Veterans Affairs card (featuring his purple heart endorsement) and, of all things, his voter’s registration card.

But Baughman was told that neither of his photo IDs were valid. His driver’s license didn’t count because it was expired and his Veterans Affairs card didn’t count because it didn’t feature any expiration date at all.

“I’ve been on the voting rolls since 1968,” Baughman said, “and all of a sudden they expect my identity to change. There was no change.”

Baughman was offered a provisional ballot. The print was so small that the polling officials had to fetch a magnifying glass. After filling out a provisional ballot, the voter has 10 days to prove his or her identity at their county clerk’s office. During this time the voter must come up with the appropriate identification.

But herein lay Baughman’s problem.

He had been to the license branch several times, trying to attain a new photo ID card, and had been denied. In order to get a new photo ID, one must have one form of primary identification: an original birth certificate or naturalization card, a U.S. Veterans Universal Access Identification card, a current military ID card or a valid U.S. passport.”

Guess he don’t deserve to vote. He’s only a decorated veteran.

“Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.”
- Joseph Stalin

I think Stalin sums it up pretty good.

Go Fish,
The issue is not providing ID, it is providing a Gov’t issued photo ID that costs money to acquire. Why shouldn’t an ID such as a college ID, a voter registration card, an employers ID etc count? When you mandate that it has to be a particular type of and that type of ID costs money, it is a problem.

I can’t believe the fact that people are complaining that it is too much to ask for one to provide a government issued photo id. In todays world you need a government issued photo id for just about anything.

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn’t have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary’s Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn’t get one but came to the precinct anyway.

“One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go do that,’” Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren’t given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. “You have to remember that some of these ladies don’t walk well. They’re in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts.”

Nonetheless, she said, the convent will make a “very concerted effort” to get proper identification for the nuns in time for the general election. “We’re going to take from now until November to get them out and get this done. You can’t do this like school kids on a bus,” she said. “I wish we could.”

First war heros now nuns.

The law provides for a free ID for those who can’t afford it so the cost issue is a moot point. They will even come to you in a mobile van to do it. Those over 65 are not required to provide a birth certificate so that argument doesn’t wash either.

Of course we can all come up with sympathetic anecdotes but in each of the cases you provided Bubba Union, it was human error that caused the problem, not the ID requirement. In the case of the nuns, they admitted they didnt want to get an ID, which they could have done and had they done so before the election, they would not have been turned away. In the case of the veteran, he had sufficient documentation to get his state issued ID card and a supervisor could have issued it but it makes a better story to say ‘veteran denied’.

The only reason to object to photo ID is if you want to vote for someone else usuing their name.

“They will even come to you in a mobile van to do it.”
oldtimer

here’s the catch…how often and where?
my guess…not very often… and only to affluent nusing homes in Ladue

If you go to your own bank to deposit your paycheck, and want $20 back, you have to show ID. You have to show ID to buy a beer. You have to show ID to buy a pack of cigarettes. These poor minorities seem to manage to get their hands on smokes and booze. Yet when it comes down to voting, it’s an excessive burden. What a joke.

I don’t understnd the excuse of the poor and elderly not having the resources to get a photo ID…without a birth certificate how do they qualify for goverment assistance, social security, medicare etc.

The only way to verify a legitimate voter is photo ID.

I think it is interesting that Jim Guest voted against when I received the results of a survey from his office this week which shows 74% of those in his district favor requiring voter ID. Since this vote was only whether to allow the issue on the ballot, I guess Mr. Guest thinks he is smarter than the voters in his district and they should not be allowed to cast a vote on the issue. He is definitely not voting the will of this district.

Old Timer, my son had to send me a notorized affidavit because he lost his birth certificate. I had to drive to the county he was born in and purchase copy of it and overnight it to him so he could purchase a home through the VA. If he needed a photo id to vote it would be the same hassel. That amounts to a poll tax.

Nick, I haven’t been carded 25 years. I have never had to show a picture id to cash my check. I’ve been at the same bank for 30 years now.

How many cases of fraudulant voting have been documented in nationwide? How much actual voter fraud has been documented?

There are many instances of voters being turned away and completely knocked off voter rolls through voter caging. Where is you all’s outrage over that?

Why don’t we require that the County Clerk check the identification of all voters without a government issued photo ID within 10 days of the election. If the County Clerk can prove fraud the Clerk shall take the appropriate steps with the legal system to charge the illegal voter if the County Clerk can not prove fraud than the vote shall count. This would make the government responsible for proving that a voter does not have the right to vote. If you are only concerned about fraud this law should suffice, if on the other hand it is your intent to stop people that should be allowed to vote from voting, you will fight this proposed law.

I think it’s less about voter fraud and more about voter supression. The judicial activisim of the Supreme Court never ceases to amaze me.

“…If he needed a photo id to vote it would be the same hassel. That amounts to a poll tax.”

Baloney. You don’t know what a poll tax is. Given the fact Indiana and other states provide the IDs for free makes that claim even stupider.

“I haven’t been carded 25 years. I have never had to show a picture id to cash my check. I’ve been at the same bank for 30 years now.”

Good luck with that if you go to another branch. You obviously don’t shop or use a debit card. Many retailers ask for ID nowadays.

“How many cases of fraudulant voting have been documented in nationwide? How much actual voter fraud has been documented?”

Dozens of cases in almost every state. This paper ran several stories regarding voter fraud and irregularities in the City of St. Louis during the 2000 and 2004 elections. ACORN, one of the most prominent “voter rights” groups, was indicted and fined twice in the last year in Missouri and Washington state for committing voter registration fraud. The Washington state case involved almost 2,000 fraudulent registrations. They’ve been charged with similar shenanigans in at least 12 states.

In 2002 it was found that 1,300 irregular votes might have been cast in a closely contested California Assembly election. An investigation turned up written admissions by 76 people that they were not citizens but were still allowed to vote. Another 49 admitted that they were not registered at their correct address. A total of 69 voters admitted that they had voted twice.

“There are many instances of voters being turned away and completely knocked off voter rolls through voter caging. Where is you all’s outrage over that?”

If those struck from the rolls are like the ones in California, I say hooray.

Again Go_Fish: If the photo ID is required and a registered voter does not have a photo ID, why not make the government responsible to identify the fraudulent voters who don’t have ID’s instead of making the voter prove within 10 days that they do have the right to vote? I thought our Constitution was written to limit government imposed actions instead of requiring lawful citizens to jump through hoops to prove they are innocent or allowed to vote. It would be much easier for a staff in the County Clerk’s office or an election board to gather the documents proving fraud than it would be for an elderly or disabled individual to gather the appropriate documentation from the county and state to prove they are legal. If the whole point of the ID is to stop voter fraud and not stop certain classes of people from voting than this should work and insure that all legitimate votes are counted.

I’m sensing that Go_Fish doesn’t want the poor or elderly to vote after all they are not smart enough to figure out how to get a certified copy of a birth certificate or other documentation to prove they are legal. What makes them smart enough to pick the conservative canidate, right Go_Fish?

“If the photo ID is required and a registered voter does not have a photo ID, why not make the government responsible to identify the fraudulent voters who don’t have ID’s instead of making the voter prove within 10 days that they do have the right to vote?”

Because asking county employees and election volunteers to waste time and taxpayer money on something individuals can easily do for themselves is dumb.

“I thought our Constitution was written to limit government imposed actions instead of requiring lawful citizens to jump through hoops to prove they are innocent or allowed to vote.”

Not if you’re talking about the US Constitution. It specifically grants to the states the responsibility of conducting elections and the authority to determine who may and who may not vote. The only restrictions the US Constitution puts on voting laws is that they not discriminate based on race, national origin, religion, etc. It also says states can’t make people pay to vote. Since a verfiable ID does not meet the definition of a poll tax, that argument goes right out the window.

“It would be much easier for a staff in the County Clerk’s office or an election board to gather the documents proving fraud than it would be for an elderly or disabled individual to gather the appropriate documentation from the county and state to prove they are legal.”

Anyone who’s ever had a property tax dispute or tried to fix an error on a deed can tell you just how speedy that process is. Your assertion that county offices are somehow models of administrative efficiency begs another question: How is that all these poor souls suddenly have no way of identifying themselves? No nursing home will take a patient without some verification of who they are. If they didn’t, they’d never be able to collect a payment or get reimbursement from medicare and medicaid. Likewise, unless a disabled person lives completely off the grid they also must have a way of proving they are who they say they are. If they can’t, they wouldn’t be eligible for federal, state, or local assistance.

“If the whole point of the ID is to stop voter fraud and not stop certain classes of people from voting than this should work and insure that all legitimate votes are counted.”

The point is the former.

“I’m sensing that Go_Fish doesn’t want the poor or elderly to vote after all they are not smart enough to figure out how to get a certified copy of a birth certificate or other documentation to prove they are legal. What makes them smart enough to pick the conservative canidate, right Go_Fish?”

Your sense is as off base as your understanding of state and federal election rules. You do realize that fraudulent voting taints the entire process, not just one end of the spectrum, right?

So, what do I have to provide to get my “free ID?”

A source document that requires me to expend additional time and money to exercise my right to vote, even though I’ve been registered to vote for some 34 years.

The indirect costs for source documents to citizens are not represented in the ID bill, and curiously were not litigated as part of the suit from Indiana. The suit only brought a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the Indiana law. The issue still remains open whether a challenge incorporating these indirect barriers to the exercise of suffrage violate the due process and equal protection gaurantees of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. It is likely the GOP troika on the Court would find no problem with that either.

Query whether the litigants also asserted whether the indirect “poll tax” violates the 15 Amendment.

Notwithstanding what the law said, there have been no documented incidents of voter fraud by the proponents of this heinous legislation and the proposed state constitutional amnedment. What we do know is that people who are eligible to vote will not be able to vote. If we look at the harm to be avoided, merely speculative voter fraud, versus the harm of the remedy, actual disenfranchisement of millions of voters in Missouri and the various states, we can see the emtire issue as solely one of suppression.

Please remember,the Republican National Committee is still subject to a national consent order out of a district court in NJ where it was sued for intentional, illegal voter suppression tactics against minorities and the poor. “Voter ID laws” are just the latest in a series of racist, facist GOP tactics to punish minority voters for voting for the Democratic nominees anywhere, and to suppress votes for Democratic candidates.

So when fishies,Nickoff and their GOP ilk want to impose their Stalinistic remedies on us, voters beware!

Those that use the following argument - “opponents of the measure ramped up their protests at a news conference in St. Louis, reiterating their claims that the measure would keep some people – particularly poor, elderly and minority citizens – out of the voting both” —- are driving to get Illegal Alien voting validated. It is a ridiculous argument. You’re either an American citizen (by birth or naturalized) or “you’re ILLEGAL” period.

Funny, but I’m not the one advocating unverifiable voter registrations or the belief that an important right like voting doesn’t come with equally important responsibilities.

I suppose we could ask voters to place their thumbs in a bottle of ink, but then our impoverished and overburdened friends on the Left would complain about the color.

Without ID how do we really know they are who they say they are….or that they are trully eligible. Just wait until the day you go to vote and someone else has already voted in YOUR name, I bet then it will be a different story. I suppose then you’ll claim the election is rigged.

“I suppose we could ask voters to place their thumbs in a bottle of ink, but then our impoverished and overburdened friends on the Left would complain about the color.”

A multitude of colors could be provided to avert complaints!

“’…If he needed a photo id to vote it would be the same hassel. That amounts to a poll tax.’
Baloney. You don’t know what a poll tax is. Given the fact Indiana and other states provide the IDs for free makes that claim even stupider.”

Documents held by the state and federal government are required to obtain a state ID. The state places an expiration date on the ID to generate revenue by making citizens reapply for the same ID. If the state holds the birth certificate in their data base why isn’t the state smart enough to allow that database to be checked at no cost so that the person may obtain the ID at no cost. An ID solely used to vote that may only be obtained by paying for documents held by the state and producing those documents to another entity of the state is a direct cost attributed to seeking the right to vote. The state also has the ability to check all of the other sources that you claim the individual had to have to be admitted into a nursing home. If a social security card is good enough for the federal government to pay $1,000 per month for that person it surely should be good enough to allow the person to vote unless the purpose is to not allow a certain class of people to vote.

“Because asking county employees and election volunteers to waste time and taxpayer money on something individuals can easily do for themselves is dumb.”

The County Clerk’s job description is to maintain an accurate database of registered voters. Asking the County Clerk to do his/her job is dumb? Right Go_Fish!

“Anyone who’s ever had a property tax dispute or tried to fix an error on a deed can tell you just how speedy that process is. Your assertion that county offices are somehow models of administrative efficiency begs another question: How is that all these poor souls suddenly have no way of identifying themselves? No nursing home will take a patient without some verification of who they are. If they didn’t, they’d never be able to collect a payment or get reimbursement from medicare and medicaid. Likewise, unless a disabled person lives completely off the grid they also must have a way of proving they are who they say they are. If they can’t, they wouldn’t be eligible for federal, state, or local assistance.”

Go_Fish you have proven my point if the state or federal government is paying via medicaid or medicare for a person stay in a nursing home, the ‘poor soul’ shouldn’t have to produce any documentation to obtain a valid ID required by the state to vote. The state should issue the ID but the state is imposing additional requirements while paying this ‘poor soul’s nursing home tab to not allow the ‘poor soul’ to vote. What is the state’s’ motivation? By looking at the process and seeing who is supporting it the state’s purpose is clear!

What is every one so scared about. Is this not what democracy is all about. Let the people of the great State of Missouri decide if we want photo ID for voting. It is ironic that the Dems are fighting an issue that allows the people to vote on a voting issue. They wanted the people to vote on minimum wage, but not on ‘voting safe guards’–very strange. This could be the last chance for the illeagals, dead people, and non-residents to vote against them allowed to vote.

Here is another thought. Owning a firearme is also a Missouri contitutinal right, yet I have to show a government issued ID to purchase one. I assume that the DEMS would have a hay day if we did away with ID’s for purchasing a firearm from a FFL dealer.