Should voters be required to present a photo ID before they can cast a ballot?
A Cole County judge recently threw out a proposed ballot question that was aimed at the November election, but state lawmakers are still pressing on the issue.
The measure defeated in court would have amended the Missouri Constitution and required voters to show photo identification at the polls, according to an article in the Kansas City Star.
The article quoted Cole County Circuit Judge Pat Joyce: "Because significant changes are required here and policy choices need to be made as to how to reallocate the words in a revised summary statement, the court chooses to vacate the summary statement and to provide the General Assembly an opportunity to revise it."
Critics of the ballot measure say the wording was convoluted intentionally to make it difficult for voters to understand. "This was not because you don’t know how to read, it was because the language was designed to make it unreadable, hence causing you to err in how you vote," wrote the blog The Indypendent on a post Monday.
"This is a victory for voting rights and it affirms the most fundamental constitutional guarantee for every citizen in Missouri," U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis, told the St. Louis American in an article last week.
Critics of voter ID measures say the requirement would restrict voter turnout. House Democrats this year said the groups most affected are minorities and the elderly. Supporters say it prevents fraud and increases the integrity of elections.
To that end, Republicans have introduced new language:
"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to create standards for enacting general laws that authorize advance voting, require the use of government-issued photo identification in order to vote, and govern voting procedures based on whether an individual is voting in person or by absentee ballot?"
A hearing on the new resolution is scheduled for Tuesday morning in the Missouri House.
What do you say? Do you think we need a voter ID law to protect the integrity of elections? Are you concerned that the poor or elderly might have more difficulty getting an ID, and therefore become disenfranchised?
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/09/Okeefe-Holder I can understand that getting an ID for voting purposes should not be burdensome to the poor, but couldn't we put some kind of system in place to waive the ($5-$20) fee for those who truly cannot afford it? I do not want to prohibit anyone from voting except those who are fraudulent.
Can you cite one case of voter fraud in the state of Missouri?
In addition, if you disagree with them, will call you a name, and dismiss you & your opinion. Using words like racist or agist. Well, of course, that's because THEY can't think of people in any other way. THEY are the ones who have to separate everyone into little categories for their tiny little minds can keep up. They all cried about voter fraud in Florida a while back, but now are CONVINCED it just isn't happening. Why is it that they always stand in front of the poor & elderly when this subject comes up? Is that where they are hiding those "extra" votes?
I would like to know why the argument is constantly made, that these folks can get out to vote, but not to get an ID. We're not asking them to do anything, or get anything that it wouldn't be a benefit for them to have in the first place. What else might they be able to do, WITH an ID, that they can't do now without one? Likely plenty. An ID would actually be a benefit for that segment of the population, NOT a detriment. Whoever told you otherwise, is trying to manipulate you. And it worked.
Photography has been readily available for over a a century - yet suddenly we want everybody to have photograph ID in order to vote. Hmmmmmm. Yet we don't want this done in a uniform way via a national level photo ID because that violates the State's Rights. Not that I mind being photographed for govt purposes, at all - but where are all the libertarians who typically ramble on about govt intrusions in liberties?
Lest I remind you, there are differences from being a citizen and registered voter. And a fake citizen is hardly likely to risk exposing themselves by going to vote, but that is just a guess. Tea Party hacks jumping the shark once again.
2009 in Cahokia two members of Cahokia’s village board plead guilty to charges of voter fraud. Not Missouri, but right across the river. There also was an issue in St. Louis City in 2001 where a lawsuit was filed to extend the voting time as the polling places were being reported as confused and hectic all in an effort to prevent people from voting. It was later discovered that the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit had been dead for a year. I am sure there are more examples out there these were I ones I found with a quick search.
But it seems if some party (let's say - democrats, so all the tea party rage-aholics here stay happy) wanted to rig an election, a massive coaltion of people going the fake ID route should be the least of our worries. Heck, you can't get most people to vote, much less do so fraudulently. It would be more likely be done by hacking the machines or by some partisan county clerk etc. Yet, here we are, in this election year babbling on about people posing as someone else. Who is going to coordinate this supposed fraud, now that ACORN is gone. Maybe Obama himself, lol. You tea party folks need to get a grip, find other hobbies and new straw men.
Did Diebold take $95 billion tax-payer dollars & insider trading information to get even wealthier? Or was that the President's boy Buffett? Again, off the subject, innaccurate, and irrelevent. In fact, the only thing those two topics have in common, is the fact that again, you only have part of the story accompanied by an accusation or two. Now, what's the REAL reason you like illegal elections? You keep wanting to distract from the point, or talk about the 'method' or 'terminology'. Look, do it however you want to make it legal. That's all this is about. Nothing else. Legal Elections. Any attempt to steer it somewhere else futile. So again, like always, you can now attack me or symantics, and not the point.
Should there be a national photo ID for voting (and illegal immigration factor)? Would this pass Constitutional muster?
And regards to county clerks and secretary's of states - Google "Kathly Nicklaus" - either she's an example of political fraud, or grossly negligent ineptitude by a county clerk.
I think the jest here is there are rules and procedures to, hopefully, prevent tampering with elections. There is no such check for the person at the ballot box as there is no way to confirm the voter is who they say they are with out requiring some form of id. It could take just a few votes to swing an election (think local elections that have sometimes 500 total voters come out).
Seven examples for you involving just ACORN: 2006 •St Louis City election officials discover almost 1,500 fraudulent voter registration cards turned in by ACORN workers (AP, October 11, 2006) •St Louis County election officials find hundreds of fraudulent address changes, most of which were submitted by ACORN (Post-Dispatch, October 25, 2006) •Four ACORN workers indicted for submitting as many as 1,000 fraudulent voter registration cards in the Kansas City area Each later pleads guilty (KC Star, November 2, 2006) 2007 •Kansas City ACORN worker indicted for election fraud and identity theft (AP, January 6, 2007) 2008 •Eight employees of ACORN plead guilty to election fraud in federal court. Their activities included submitting registration cards with forged signatures and false names. (Post-Dispatch, April, 2, 2008) •Jackson County reports 100s of fraudulent registrations from ACORN (AP, October 9, 2008) •ACORN worker pleads guilty to federal charges for submitting fraudulent voter registrations. (AP, March 24, 2009)