Civil Rights

Rep. Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) was back in front of the House Elections Committee today, asking his colleagues to support his newest Photo ID constitutional amendment (HJR64).*  This year's proposal does not include any enabling language, and would require future General Assemblies to actually draft and pass the legislation to suppress voter turnout for the poor, disabled, elderly, etc. 

To kick off his presentation, Cox said the vote fraud in Missouri is so pervasive, it's impossible to quantify the extent to which it has corrupted our political process.  In his words:

There are unscrupulous individuals that operate within our system and lessen the importance of your vote.  And, in fact, folks all over the state.

There are countless examples of voter fraud in the state, in this state and elsewhere.  It comes in various forms.

One common theme in this, in these vote fraud schemes is that it's underhanded and secret. 

Listen:

A statement like might lead you to conclude Cox has so many examples of fraudulent voting that he's simply unable to count them all.  But when pressed to provide just a few of these "countless" examples that his legislation would help address by centrist Rep. Chris Kelly (D-Columbia) , he fumbled and stumbled to provide a coherent response.

Sen. Bill Stouffer will be opining on the "Missouri response" to potential changes in the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy this morning, as you may know by now. 

Stouffer will no doubt spend some time trying to explain how his anti-gay posturing with state time and resources is not related to his campaign for Congress, and he should. 

But as Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, Stouffer may also have some insight into how and why Cpl. Dennis Engelhard, recently killed in a Christmas Day traffic accident, was able to serve openly in the Missouri State Highway Patrol. 

As far as I know, there have been no questions about Engelhard's ability to perform his duties at the highest level, though his death does raise serious questions about state policy regarding domestic partner benefits. 

The University of Missouri is (finally) looking into domestic partnership benefits for employees, and UM System President Gary Forsee is said to be "receptive."

Kit Bond voted for the Department of Defense appropriations bill today which included hate crimes provisions Roy Blunt said  are "unconstitutional," criminalize "thought" and compromise "the very freedoms our service men and women fight to protect."

The measure was approved, 68 to 29, with a majority of Republicans voting against it.

Bond says he's not happy about the idea of voting to broaden the current definition of federal hate crimes -- which covers attacks motivated by race, color, religion or national origin -- to include those based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, but if it's really an unconstitutional act to create thought crimes and destroy America, shouldn't Kit Bond really be making a bigger stink about it? 

Reps. Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer have signed on to a letter drafted by Rep. Steve King with false accusations about top Obama education adviser Kevin Jennings, calling on him to resign. Jennings has come under fire in a coordinated effort by conservatives in recent weeks because of his history as a gay rights advocate and because of an unfortunate incident from the 1980s when Jennings was a young teacher.

Greg Sargent has details on the letter:

GOP Rep Steve King, who’s been leading the charge against top Obama education adviser Kevin Jennings, today called for Jennings to be fired for allegedly "ignoring the sex abuse of a child" when he was a young schoolteacher.

But guess what: King’s office was informed at least a week ago that even Fox News, a lead tormentor of Jennings, corrected these allegations and acknowledged that the “child” was actually of legal consent age. I know, because I informed his office of this, in the course of seeking comment on an earlier story I was doing about the whole mess.

The DSCC has released a new web video and online petition challenging the 30 Republican Senators who voted against the Franken amendment to prohibit the Defense Department from contracting with companies that prohibit employees from suing for rape or sexual harassment. They write

Sen. Al Franken offered an amendment to the defense appropriations bill with this simple goal: Make sure employees -- most of them women -- who face sexual assault, battery and discrimination at work get their day in court -- and chance at justice.

Read More »

The Post-Dispatch's Bill Lambrecht tweets that Roy Blunt will vote against the FY2010 defense authorization bill because it includes hate crimes provisions designed to protect gays and lesbians.  The provisions Blunt opposes would expand federal hate crimes to include attacks based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disabilities.

The House passed the same protections in the "Matthew Shepard Act" in April by a 249-175 vote, which are supported by more than 300 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations.  That legislation was then added to the DOD authorization bill in July by the Senate by a 63-28 vote. 

In March, Sen. Kit Bond and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) agreed to conduct a review that would look at

• how the CIA created and operated its detention and interrogation program,
• how the CIA determined that detainees were aware of relevant intelligence,
• whether the CIA was being truthful in its description of the program to Congress and
• what kind of intelligence was gleaned through the tough interrogation tactics.

However, Bond quit the review to protest AG Eric Holder's appointment of a special prosecutor to review the legality of Bush-era interrogation techniques. Since he's quit, Politico reports, things are moving along more quickly because Bond isn't arguing over the content of the report.

Representatives from more than thirty equality advocacy organizations gathered in St. Louis this weekend for The Equality Federation's summer meeting.  The conference -- to celebrate recent successes and discuss the continuing work to protect the lives of LGBT folks at the state and local level -- wrapped up yesterday.

"While we still wait for progress at the federal level on issues like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Employment protections and hate crimes, we have been very successful at moving things forward within our respective states," said AJ Bockelman. "For example, just this past spring, Columbia passed a domestic partner registry. It is limited in scope, but now at least registered couples can have some way to be recognized as a couple when one of them gets hospitalized or incarcerated."

Yesterday, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an unanimous ruling striking down the state law banning same-sex marriage. All of the judges agreed that discriminating against gay and lesbian couples doesn't "substantially further any important governmental objective.”  I jumped up and down, hugged my wife (we feel pretty confident that our marriage isn't being "undermined" in any way), and then prepared for the ugliness that was sure to come. 

As exciting as it was to see good sense and equality prevail over fear and prejudice, there's no way a similar ruling could come down in Missouri to change the way we discriminate against same-sex couples. Missouri's Defense of Marriage Act and a 2004 Constitutional Amendment prevent that from happening here, and even prevent Missouri from even recognizing the so-to-be-married same-sex couples from Iowa.

Of course, that hasn't stopped some conservatives from getting worked up about the ruling. The new fear, it seems, is that Missouri's constitution will be declared unconstitutional, and super-duper extreme measures are required to shut down the "activist judges."

So who gets called for comment?  Ed Martin, of course.

A unanimous decision from the Iowa Supreme Court:

DES MOINES, Iowa - The Iowa Supreme Court says the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.

In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional.

Still, because of Missouri’s 2004 anti-marriage constitutional amendment, same-sex marriages will not be recognized here in Missouri.

UPDATE: And the Missouri backlash begins