Voter Intimidation in Missouri

The New York Times reports today about the efforts in Missouri to change the Missouri Constitution--immediately!--to allow the state to pass laws making it much harder for people to vote.

These are the offending sections of the Missouri Constitution:

* "all persons . . . are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law," Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 2 * "all elections shall be free and open; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage." Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 25. * "All citizens of the United States . . . over the age of eighteen who are residents of this state [**23] and of the political subdivision in which they offer to vote are entitled to vote at all elections by the people, if . . . they are registered within the time prescribed by law" Missouri. Mo. Const. art. VIII, sec. 2

It was on the basis of these provisions of the Constitution that the Missouri Supreme Court concluded in 2006 that the right to vote in Missouri was fundamental, and the difficult and confusing bureaucratic barriers of a proof-of-citizenship requirement to voting could not be erected without them being narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. The MO Supreme Court struck down the proof-of-citizenship law, but its supporters are back, determined to use Constitutional amendment processes to intimidate voters.

What was the compelling state interest proferred by the aggressive litigators in the first case? The Assistant Secretary of State since 2000 reported no reports of voter impersonation fraud. Instead, the Court noted,

"the only specific instance of possible fraud that has occurred since 2002 of which the witnesses were aware involved an attempt (whether intentional or accidental is not clear) by a person who had voted absentee to then vote in person."

So between 2002 and 2006 there was a single case of a person attempting to vote twice. That person tried to vote absentee and then showed up at the polls. So this law had to be passed, you see, because he might return again …. and he might bring his friends.

The Missouri Supreme Court, considering the specter of this lonely, and rather pathetic seeming figure, who had to single-handedly bear the weight of threatening the integrity of Missouri's political process, concluded he did not merit the massive wall built to stop him.

But the litigants shook off the rejection--no, no, no, they insisted, it was much more serious than that. Other people might perceive a threat in this little man, and might start becoming cynical and doubting the integrity of the political process if they believed that such people were out there. If I wanted to run a heist on the Missouri democracy, I would not set up shop next to a migrant labor turkey factory, yelling out, "calling all illegals," and pass out instructions about how to lie your way into the voting booth. Seriously, is that the fear? What's the image? For anyone who starts to paint a vague picture, throwing out words like immigration and voting and hoping that others get scared, ask them to return to their script. What's the beef? Where's the thief?

If I did want to threaten the integrity of the process, seriously--if I did want people to give up, downcast because powerful forces overwhelm their public power--if I did want to undermine people's faith in the basic trustworthiness of public debate--I would take a direct hatchet to the Equal Protection and voter protection clauses of my state's constitution, and do it as quickly as possible, so as to try to disenfranchise voters in November's elections.

The fraud argument is a complete fraud, and should be taken on directly. There is no threat of a wholesale attack on our elections by non-citizens. There is a very real threat that people who would otherwise vote will be discouraged by the process, overwhelmed by the bureaucracy (I've been in NC 10 months and still can't find my SS card , which I need to get my NC drivers license, which I need to sign up for...), and daunted by the costs, which run close to $100 including all fees and gas. I hope the voters of Missouri find pride in their Constitution, and keep its protections intact.

Comments (42)

1. The real way to falsify elections is to become an election official and to delete electronic ballots "by accident."

   A certain number of conservative politicians, the spiritual offspring of Katherine Harris of Florida and Kenneth Blackwell of Ohio, are well aware of this, and their campaign against "voter fraud" is a grand scheme to distract the public from the real threat to the integrity of our elections: crooked election officials who use slippery high-tech equipment to make thousands of digital votes disappear.

   Individual voters simply do not have the power to falsify elections that election officials do. One person can only try to re-vote so many times before getting caught. But a crooked election official with access to a Diebold machine and a few moments out of the public eye can easily change the outcome of an election without anybody noticing - until it's much too late.

   Whenever you see people use racism or xenophobia to spread unrealistic fears, ask yourself: Who is the man behind the curtain who is trying to scare us with this humbug, and what does he want to keep us from noticing?

   For some real hair-raising news about threats to our elections, check out Bev Harris at the Black Box Voting website. And my advice to election reformers is: Demand re-countable paper ballots and receipts, demand public oversight of vote counts, demand that we train people to monitor elections and pay them decently, and demand that we, the voting public, be educated about how to vote and informed of our rights.

   And here's another piece of advice: If you value your right to vote, then be careful how much power you give to electoral officials to turn people away from voting booths. The next person to be disenfranchised due to "lack of sufficient identification" may be YOU.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 05/12/2008 @ 10:06pm

2. Posted by libzsuck at 05/12/2008

   Can you point me to the historical proof that we are willing to steal elections?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 10:19pm

3. Posted by libzsuck at 05/12/2008

   Actually he didn't try to steal anything and the only people who had friends in the Florida Supreme court was Bush. Maybe the reason you "Don't want to do my research for me" is because there is no evidence and you are just spouting bullshit as usual.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 10:41pm

4. Oh boy, Libswarnedu and Libzsuck posting at the same time. Narrowly avoided a matter antimatter explosion there! Where the hell is the HAZMAT sign?

   Posted by Benchrest at 05/12/2008 @ 10:52pm

5. SHIELDS UP KEPTIN!!!

   Posted by yutsano at 05/12/2008 @ 11:12pm

6. Yes, Al Gore tried to steal the Florida election by relying on the the governor of Florida (Bush's brother), the Florida Supreme Court (repub controlled), and the Supreme Court (repub controlled), to bad his clever plans back fired.

   Posted by shadow master at 05/12/2008 @ 11:24pm

7. Voting ought to be at least as proof-intensive as getting a LEGAL drivers' license, IMO!!

   Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/12/2008 |

   with some age related exceptions, and well run.

   my crazy dream is to follow australia and require everyone 2 vote or pay a $50 fine...

   raise some $...no need for id...sorta.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2008 @ 12:41am

8. ibbleblibble

   yeah!

   i say we make the candidates take tests, too (foreign policy, economics, etc.,).

   kinda like,

   "prove it, loudmouth."

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 12:48am

9. Oh boy, Libswarnedu and Libzsuck posting at the same time. Narrowly avoided a matter antimatter explosion there! Where the hell is the HAZMAT sign?

   Posted by Benchrest at 05/12/2008

   Libzsuck logged out of her computer, packed her stuff, and drove home, where she logged back on as Libswarnedu and proceded to argue against herself...

   brilliant, holmes!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2008 @ 12:53am

10. blasted time stamps,

    now, there's no alibi.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 12:57am

11. Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008

    not needed, watson - i got a hunch...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2008 @ 01:04am

12. sup frosty. voters been getting intimidated in missouri. we should send in the great warren oates...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2008 @ 01:06am

13. Posted by libzsuck at 05/12/2008

    You go beyond delusional to moronic. In 2000 it was George W Bush, Ms Harris and the Supreme Court who hijacked the election dipshit boy. Nice try at revising history.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/13/2008 @ 03:59am

14. Voting ought to be at least as proof-intensive as getting a LEGAL drivers' license, IMO!!

    Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/12/2008

    Happy, The way gas prices keep going up, there may be a lot of people without drivers licenses in the future. It doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that people have to have a drivers license to vote.

    Also, why are you conservatives worried about everyone voting or not? Afraid that the majority of Americans don't share your conservative beliefs and therefore shouldn't have the right to vote? That's true conservatism for you.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/13/2008 @ 04:05am

15. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/13/2008 | ignore this person

    dl or picture id.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2008 @ 05:35am

16. You LIBZ will steal elections anyway you can....this is an historical fact..

    Posted by libzsuck at 05/12/2008

    How about the "historical fact" of the skew of voting machines in OH in the last POTUS election - by the GOP.

    However all, for the record I live in Indiana which has a photo ID law and it hasn't created undue hardship as the state hands out free photo IDs. (Well, I think they're $2 or something) The only folks I heard about being "disenfranchised" were two old nuns who didn't have any photo ID other than long-expired drivers' licenses.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/13/2008 @ 07:32am

17. my crazy dream is to follow australia and require everyone 2 vote or pay a $50 fine...

    raise some $...no need for id...sorta.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2008

    That would be the rethugs worst nightmare. The only reason they win elections is because most people don't vote. They get their radical base fired up on hot button issues like gun rights, abortion, prayer in school, burning the flag etc.

    The rethug base is a bunch of saps being played for the suckers that they truly are.

    Notice that election days are not federal holidays. Why would that be...maybe to keep people at work and away from the voting booths?

    It goes back to what this article says. Voter intimidation. I know, I live in the south and see the rethugs send the fat rednecks out to walk around with badges on to try to intimidate people who show up to the voting polls. I'll bet they wouldn't be interesed in checking the photo ID of someone playing CW music with an NRA bumper sticker on his RAM pick-up.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/13/2008 @ 07:38am

18. Posted by leftofcenter at 05/13/2008

    Yeah, sorry, but I just don't think folks can be sold on "Being 'forced' to have an ID before you can vote is disenfranchisment"....mostly because I (bold) am not sold on it.

    Again, I think it's part of this liberal mind-set that it's "still 1955". (where as the conservatives WANT it to be 1955...heheh)

    You have to have an ID to drive, buy alcohol, buy tobacco, get on a plane, etc.....and it doesn't "intimidate" anybody into not getting on the interstate, drinking, smoking, or flying the friendly skies.

    Again, sorry...just don't see it.

    Posted by Mask at 05/13/2008 @ 08:44am

19. Mask .... Huh? I wasn't claiming it was disenfranchisement. (But the thing with the nuns did happen. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24490932/ )

    Dude .. drink your coffee before you blog!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/13/2008 @ 09:00am

20. Posted by leftofcenter at 05/13/2008

    Dude...I was AGREEING with you. As in "Yeah", the "Sorry" was for those claiming it was.

    Posted by Mask at 05/13/2008 @ 09:07am

21. Having the photo ID is not the problem I see. Having jackasses from the republican party checking the validity of the pictures and the person is the problem I have. So, can these people randomly say, hey, that's not you in the photo, sorry, you can't vote?!

    Now of course that would be an issue after the election is over for the courts to dispute....but the damage will have already been done. Besides, we saw what the Supreme Court did in 2000 Just the states that hinge either way would be the ones these "photo issues" will crop up.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/13/2008 @ 09:35am

22. Nor is there anything about abortion, welfare, health care, privacy and any number of ideas in the constitution,..but activist judges have found many things in the constitution that were never there or envisioned by ther FF...if one can afford to drive in the US,many illegals can afford a car, booze, travel, (apparently no auto insurance, you pay that for the uninsured), then anyone here that is a natural citizen can certainly afford and ID to prove they are of age to buy beer and vote.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/13/2008

    JM,

    It isn't written anywhere in the constitution that you have a right to take a dump either, but one would think that that would be an implicit right.

    It seems that a logical solution would be for people to have a picture included on your social security card.

    The big problem here is that in federal elections, all of the states should conduct the voting laws the same since it's a federal election, not a state one. The feds run the elections, but the states watch the fed to make sure the fed is on the up and up.

    But that whole Florida thing was a joke. Come on. Bush's brother is the gov. of the state in question, Kathy Harris is, who just happens to be a rethug is in charge of counting the votes, and problems come up and you wonder why the dems cry foul? What would you do if the dems pulled that crap off?

    You, Liverlips, Rio and the rest of the crew would be howling at the top of your lungs. So, breaking the law to get your guy in is A ok, but only if you do it right?

    If our election process was more transparent, a lot of these problems would go away. I do like the idea of fining people for not voting though.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/13/2008 @ 10:46am

23. Why were all the laws fine when Bush stole two elections and had a dozen recounts until Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush handed the election to him???

    Now these political operators feel some immediate imperative to change the laws which worked fine since the constitution was enacted conveniently when the pendulum is swinging back towards common sense..

    Who are they trying to hurt??? hispanics, blacks, elderly...

    It happened here in NY State, thousands were disenfranchised...We already voted in November..white, older, a lot fell off, when you try to hurt others, you usually hurt yourself worse, people see through hate, bigotry of GOP........and are tired of it......it is not working for us, if something is not working, change it.....

    people need to fight back now....it is time for change....even older people need to realize what you are sending on to the next generation...don't let it go on....don't spread ageism, sexism, or racism on...or don't be surprised at the results, at least those of you who lived through the Depression.....

    Vote for Real Change Now, Not Pandering!!!!! You are Smarter than this...we all are and we deserve better than this!!!! We are all Americans first and foremost....maybe we are "bitter" we have about a thousand reasons to be....those who call us elitist are actually wealthier than all of us.....wake up and let's do this thing!!!!

    Posted by jrs112 at 05/13/2008 @ 11:00am

24. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/13/2008

    I wasn't wining about the supreme court. Try reading the person I was replying to before you lob insults my way. I was responding to Libzsuckz idea that we Demos tried to steal the election in Florida by messing with the Florida Supreme court.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 11:43am

25. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/13/2008

    Gah when someone is responding to a post do you guys even bother to read the post they are responding to before you spout off some BS. Slow down and read and you would find out I wasn't whining about someone stealing an election, I was responding to someone whining about Demo's stealing the election in Florida.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 11:44am

26. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/13/2008

    God you conserves that speak on this site are so damned deluded. You think your people NEVER steal elections? Are you kidding me. Maybe you guys should grow up and stop thinking everyone in your parties shit doesn't stink. You guys commit just as many crime as we do and you pull just as much devious shit.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 11:47am

27. <i>Whine about the Supreme Court all you want, Bush had the most legal votes in Florida.</i>

    Well, since the Supreme's ordered the recount aborted (thought they were against that...ah, the hypocrisy LOL), I guess we'll never know who had the most votes. Kind of makes you wonder though -if one side wants all the votes counted, and the other side doesn't, which side logically would benefit and which side would not? Hmmm, that's a head-scratcher.

    <i?As to stealing elections, I posted three examples recently. Mayor Daley's illegal activities in Chicago stole Illinois for Kennedy giving Kennedy (D) the Presidency. In 2000, an Indian reservation in SD created a few thousand votes to steal the Senate election for Tim Johnson (D). And in Washington, the first and second recount had the Republican winning the Governor's race, so the Democrat got a third recount in order to change more moves and stole the election.</i>

    Excellent examples, I'm sure - but could you please tell us which of those whould have been prevented by photo ID's being required?

    Or rather would a paper trail have been an effective tool to prevent such miscarriages of electoral will?

    Posted by Turk33 at 05/13/2008 @ 11:56am

28. Posted by Mask at 05/13/2008

    "ooops....my bad"

    Damned I miss the HTML ... this is so much more nuanced with bold and italics and such.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/13/2008 @ 12:49pm

29. Not sure where my birth cert. is and my passport expired last year- I guess I shouldn't be allowed to vote. But hey, I can legally drive, legally buy a beer, and legally buy a gun. With all that, who needs voting any way? If those darn repubs had been able to keep their hold on the Latino vote, this would be DOA.

    Posted by phillymark at 05/13/2008 @ 1:46pm

30. <i>Turk, neither side wanted all the votes counted because both sides knew there wasn't enough time for that.</i>

    Posted by marybretbrad at 05/13/2008

    Time? WTF? Since when is time a consideration when getting an election right is the issue Jesus, what a red herring.

    There was only one reason why Bushco wanted the vote counting to stop, and it isn't because they were worried about time constraints.

    <i>I think this is more logical explanation that yours.</i>

    Posted by marybretbrad at 05/13/2008

    I'm sure you do.

    Posted by Turk33 at 05/13/2008 @ 2:39pm

31. There is no constitutional right to vote for president of the US. Election is based solely on the Electoral College.

    Posted by lvliberty1

    how nifty.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 2:57pm

32. Look, the whole point of Florida-2000 doesn't matter how he won....the point is THE WRONG GUY won.

    Trillions in debt...thousands of GIs dead in a useless war....Katrina....Plame-gate....etc., etc., etc.

    Aside from some seriously partisan Repubs (who also don't think real deep considering how Bush has screwed the Party over for maybe 20 years with his incompetence), 70% of the country would go back and elect Gore in a landslide if they could now.

    Posted by Mask at 05/13/2008 @ 3:15pm

33. Hagee has often made references to "the apostate church" and the "great whore," terms that Catholics say are slurs aimed at the Roman Catholic Church. In his letter, Hagee said he now better understood that the Book of Revelation's reference to the Catholic Church as "the apostate church" and the "great whore" are "a rhetorical device long employed in anti-Catholic literature and commentary."

    Let us express our collective displeasure with Big Media their skewing of facts and ignoring very sexist, racist, homophobic pastors whom are affiliated with their candidate McCain....while using faulty logic and sound bites w/regard to other pastors...it is a double standard and lies...bush/clinton/mccain....one and the same....vote for any=same result....

    Posted by jrs112 at 05/13/2008 @ 4:06pm

34. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/13/2008

    The reason I didn't bother countering with three examples is because I don't have the energy to scower the internet to find 3 examples to prove to you that your party is not perfect. You will find some excuse to say that those aren't the same because the Republicans did something the Demo's didn't and even if they did the exact same thing you will find some way to excuse it. You follow the normal party think that says everything you do is better than everything the Demo's do no matter what. Which is kind of the way a child thinks. Normal thinking people understand that everyone has their goods and their bads. Everyone has their positives and negatives no matter what group. No one is more prone to evil than anyone else unless their message is inherently evil to start with. Like "Kill all women" or something like that. But since I can't change your mind from you party think why bother wasting my time? You will go on in your delusion that you are better than everyone else because you are a Republican and I will go on laughing hysterically that someone can be so narrow-minded.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 4:14pm

35. Well put Mask. I just love when smug Republicans brag about the Florida Supreme Court Victory. If Florida would have gone the other way- The republican party would be much better off and the 21% approval rate embarrassment would disappear. Proud of ya!

    Posted by phillymark at 05/13/2008 @ 4:16pm

36. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/13/200

    What based on fear-mongering, slander and a weak opponent? Yeah something to be REAL proud of. "Elect us or the terrorists will come into your house at night and murder your children!" Great politics right there.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 6:11pm

37. Hy there ibb did you receive my message?

    Posted by mihnea at 05/13/2008

    which one and where, dear? i've been floating on a piece of debris lately and may have missed it.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2008 @ 6:21pm

38. hey, don't call the earth "debris".

    yet.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 9:48pm

39. Mary, gotta hand it to you, clearly the worst President ever, or at least the most embarrassing, and you still "brag" about his monsterous '04 win. Millions of americans bought the Milli Vanilli album- just saying.

    Posted by phillymark at 05/14/2008 @ 09:25am

40. HAPPY3

    scowler.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2008 @ 4:00pm

41. In fact the three most high profile election thefts were all Democrat.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 05/13/2008 | ignore this person

    .

    Actually, this kind of statement displays a SERIOUS delusion based on a complete ignorance of history. In 1876, Republican candidate Hayes, with the help of Republican President Grant, quite literally stole the election right out from under the Democratic candidate, Tilden in what was probably, up until 2000, the most infamous stolen election in history (certainly more universally acknowledged as such than the JFK election.)

    "The last time a Presidential election was stolen in broad daylight was in 1876."

    http://davekopel.org/Misc/OpEds/1876-Election.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_J._Tilden

    .

    Then of course, we have the 2000 and 2004 elections. The most blatant being Ohio 2004.

    http://www.votermarch.org/

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041129/corn

    .

    And please, let's not forget the 1980 election, with GW the 1st using his CIA buddies to stike a deal with the Iranians in the infamous "October Surprise". The 1980's also had several elections (many in Texas - surprise again) 'dirty tricked' by the young Karl Rove.

    http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/cheat3.html

    I could EASILY go on...and on....and on. But seriously, anyone who pretends that the notion of 'stealing elections' doesn't apply to Republicans, has taken 'partisanship' WELL beyond 'delusional'.

    Posted by Lillian at 05/14/2008 @ 7:23pm

42. Bravo Lillian!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/15/2008 @ 1:20pm