Early Voting

Rep. Pat Conway (D-St. Joseph) today voted for the Republican plan to skew state and federal elections with unnecessary government-issued photo ID requirements. The bill passed this morning by the House Elections Committee differs from the legislation passed by the Senate earlier this session and from the proposal already approved by the full House.

The Senate Financial and Governmental Organizations and Elections committee voted "do pass" on three voter suppression bills this afternoon without amending them, though a combined bill -- perhaps with early voting or no-fault absentee voting provisions -- is expected to be worked out before legislation is debated by the full Senate. 

Sens. Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) and Bill Stouffer (R-Napton) both have proposals (SJR 9 and SJR 2) to amend the state constitution to allow for unnecessary and expensive laws that would require government-issued photo IDs when voting.  (Stouffer's language says voters "may" be required to show such identification; Engler's says they "shall.") Stouffer has a third bill (SB 3) that would put the new requirements into law, provided that the constitution is amended to allow the GOP-friendly suppression they desire. 

Here's a good sign that Missouri's voting laws need some tweaking for the 21st Century: the Chairman of the Senate committee that oversees election laws openly admitted that he commits election crimes annually when he requests an absentee ballot.

Under current law, voters must provide a valid excuse for casting an absentee ballot. "I lie every year," Sen. Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) told his committee yesteday.

With two party-line votes this morning, the House Elections Committee approved Rep. John Diehl's (R-Town and Country) HB1966 to require voters to present government-issued photo identification before voting, and Rep. Stanley Cox' (R-Sedalia) HJR64, a proposed constitutional amendment that would create the framework for Diehl's bill. Both pieces of legislation also include provisions for early voting to distract attention from the true intent of their efforts.

The GOP's proposed Photo ID/Early Voting constitutional amendment is set to hit the Floor this week, with Republicans looking to make one final push to disenfranchise more than 200,000 voters.  The Beacon's Jo Mannies and Dale Singer, with help from Jason Rosenbaum, have just posted a comprehensive overview of the legislation that's well worth the read.  The stale, unfounded arguments from the GOP about "fraud" are all there, plus a look at who will be affected by Photo ID requirements.

The Beacon story also touches on the resistance from the state's county clerks, who are concerned about the fiscal impact and mandates of the early voting plan, which would be written into the constitution, and would therefore be very difficult to modify in future years.

Missouri's county clerks are split over the photo ID requirement, said association president Stan Whitehurst, the Webster County circuit clerk. But when it comes to HJR 9's early voting mandate, most of the association members are against it...

Many association members object to HJR 9's specific language regarding office hours and administrative procedures for early voting, he explained. But what really got the group worked up is the measure's lack of state money to help cover the added election costs that county clerks believe will accompany early voting.

Legislators "don't feel the (financial) pain," Whitehurst said. "If they had some skin in the game, they'd be concerned about the costs of these specific proposals."

The association's concerns could well harm HJR 9's chances, by providing unexpected assistance to various groups who have long been opponents of any Missouri law requiring government-issued photo IDs at the polls.

Steve Kraske's reaction to the House Election Committee's passage of a new Photo ID + Early Voting constitutional amendment is really frustrating. Like too many others, Kraske sees one policy change supported by a lot of Republicans, sees another policy change supported by a lot of Democrats, and seems to believe that since they're both together, it's a wash. After all, all legislative goals are equally cyncial and self-serving, right?

Republicans, who have been clammoring [sic] for years for voter ID legislation, get that in the proposed package.

Democrats, just as eager for advanced voting (like Kansas), get what they're looking for.

Still, Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan isn't pleased. She opposes the voter ID bill, which would require a voter to show some sort of government-issued photo ID (like a driver's license). Some 200,000 Missourians lack such a credential and, as a result, they won't be able to vote. Never mind that most of them are probably Democrats.

First: Missouri already has voter ID requirements. Republicans want Photo ID laws because they create new hurdles to voting.

At a recent Senate committee hearing, Sen. Matt Bartle (R-Lee's Summit) made plain that early voting or no-excuse absentee voting would not receive GOP support unless Democrats dropped their opposition to Photo ID legislation:

The only way one is going through is with the other. The Republicans have figured out early voting is not good for them, and the Democrats have figured out that voter ID is not good for them.

On one hand, it's nice to hear Bartle acknowledge the Republicans' goals in constructing new barriers to voting for individuals without photo identification (who just happen to be minorities, seniors , women, persons with disabilities and nuns who are less likely to support GOP candidates). I assume that with Bartle's admission, we can stop the whole "combating fraud" charade.

On the other hand, the facts just don't seem to back up Bartle's assertion that early voting is "not good" for Republicans.