Photo ID

One week ago today, Rep. Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) told the House Elections Committee that "there are countless examples of voter fraud" in Missouri.  Cox has long been a proponent of laws to require voters to show government-issued photo identification at the polls, and is sponsoring a constitutional amendment this year (HJR64) to make that happen.

Then Saturday, longtime voter suppression activist Thor Hearne rejected questions from a conservative crowd in Chesterfield about the possibility of widespread voter fraud.  "I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories," he said about the conservative hysteria about fraud he helped gin up. (And yes, Hearne's about-face on this subject is still puzzling).

So today, Rep. Cynthia Davis (R-O'Fallon) tried out a brand new message at this week's Elections Committee hearing. In her words, it's now "virtually impossible" to know if there's voter impersonation fraud in Missouri (the kind of fraud a photo id would attempt to thwart). 

You bring up that people haven't proven how much fraud there is, but absent this law, it would be virtually impossible -- after this law is passed is when we may find out how much fraud there was. I would recommend that we need to try it as an experiment, and then we'll [inaudible] be able to discover how many people  showed up.

Color me confused by these statements in a Saturday Beacon article from GOP activist lawyer Thor Hearne:

[Hearne] told fellow conservatives Saturday that the best way for them to attack voter fraud was to get involved as a poll worker, so that they could familiarize themselves with Missouri's election laws and offer up some front-line protection against potential fraud.

Hearne also rejected audience queries about the possibility of widespread voter fraud. While acknowledging "a rare group of people wanting to subvert an election,'' Hearne added, "I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories."

First, Hearne's comments are at odds with the decidedly weak GOP argument employed to justify a constitutional amendment and new laws to require voters to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls.

Second, Thor Hearne has not exactly been a passive observer of Republican campaigns to enact photo ID legislation, based on conspiracy theories of widespread voter fraud. 

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.

As expected, Republicans jumped on this morning's press event from St. Louis City's Republican elections director, hoping to score some post-session points against Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.  The state GOP accused Caranahan of attempting to "cover up" the alleged voter fraud they believe "continues to thrive in Missouri," and will undoubtedly look to make some hay out of the alleged violations. 

Except their attack doesn't make any sense. The evidence of the "cover up" is a report that compiles information from local Boards of Elections -- including the St. Louis City Board of Election. If today's alleged violations had been reported in any sort of timely manner, they would have been included in said report, which was released last month.

And as Jo Mannies reports in the Beacon, the GOP's attacks incorrectly assert that today's allegations have anything to do with voter impersonation fraud, which is what they really wish they had. That way, they could use it as evidence to impose new photo ID requirements for 230,000 other Missourians.

Desperate to distract attention of their many failures and internal strife, the GOP press team is living by the old adage: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

I hope I'm wrong, but I imagine we're going to be seeing a lot more about this alleged vote fraud in St. Louis as evidence that Missouri needs a restrictive Photo ID law.  If and when Photo ID advocates decide to use this, they'll have to work hard to ignore the fact that photo identification wouldn't have prevented the type of alleged problems uncovered by the city Election Board.

Most of those votes -- 32 -- were cast in November by people who used vacant lots or abandoned buildings as their address...

Another handful voted twice in November, February or April elections, Leiendecker said. In all but one case, the suspects apparently voted in the city of St. Louis and also in St. Louis County, or they voted in St. Louis and also in Illinois.

The exception was a person who voted absentee at the Election Board headquarters on Saturday, before the April election, and then voted again on Election Day.

"We've done our job here. We're turning our information over to the federal prosecutor,'' Leiendecker said.

(As an aside: It doesn't appear that the government-issued photo IDs sought by some state officials, primarily Republicans, would have prevented the type of alleged voting irregularities uncovered by the city Election Board.)

Boone Co. resident J. Karl Miller's op-ed calling for VOTER ID in Missouri confuses the issues surrounding this year's proposed PHOTO ID law.  I couldn't agree more that Voter ID is necessary for fair elections and that's why Missouri already HAS commonsense voter ID laws in place.  Like a lot of people supporting HJR 9, Mr. Miller confuses current voter ID requirements with restrictive government-issued photo ID proposals that have been floating around the legislature for several years now.

Mr. Miller goes on to sight that rampant frequency of voter fraud hypothetical voter impersonation fraud as a reason to require photo ID, and in effect disenfranchise 230,000 voters.  He then goes on to equate the constitutional RIGHT to vote the same way as boarding a plane to Vegas or renting "Harold and Kumar Go to Whitecastle" as being one and the same as voting for the next President.

It's time that folks get their facts straight and understand that photo ID requirements threaten our access to to the ballot. 

Affected voters and Boone County Clerk Wendy Noren held an awareness event with Secretary of State Robin Carnahan this afternoon to discuss an updated list of registered voters who don't have driver's licenses. The event comes as HJR 9 sits on the House Perfection Calendar and legislators have predicted that it will be sent out of the House this week. 

Overall, there are nearly 230,000 Missouri registered voters who currently do not have government-issued identification. Breaking it down by county, we see a startling trend of which voters will be most impacted:

• St. Louis Co.: 51,708
• St. Louis City:  29,949
• Kansas City:  22,741
• Greene Co:  10,043
• Jackson Co:  8,866
• Boone Co:  6,055
• St. Charles Co:  5,903
• Clay Co:  5,580

The list goes on and on and on...

I don't need anymore evidence to know that photo ID will cause chaos and disenfranchise voters statewide.  I don't need anymore evidence to understand that this measure will create more hurdles for progressives than out-state conservatives. 

Despite a a still-unfinished state budget not having a clue on how to spend federal stimulus dollars, the House leadership remains intent on passing a regressive photo ID law AGAIN.  Rep. Shane Schoeller stated late last week that the House would take up photo ID, and rumors continue to resonate in the Capitol that the House will once again pass the controversial measure for the fourth straight year. 

Why is it that that the GOP would rather disenfranchise 200,000 eligible voters than pass health care reform or pass a reasonable budget?   Why is the GOP focusing on photo IDs the year after the state experienced a huge voter turnout -- without a single reported instance of voter impersonation fraud?

The answer is simple: The GOP is worried. They hold only one of five statewide offices and lost the gubernatorial election by 19 points.  And the House is within reach for Democrats in 2010.

Moreover, the party of "fiscal conservatives" doesn't mind passing a bill with a $10 MILLION pricetag if it means they will have a permanent electoral edge built into the state constitution. 

Women's Voices Women Vote has released a new study looking at the obstacles hindering the right to vote.  Their report looks at a number of issues, including Photo ID requirements. The following findings are especially relevant to this week's House debate:

These strict requirements adversely impact populations such as women, African Americans, Latinos, low income citizens, and youths who often lack current or acceptable forms of identification.

For example, a 2007 Brennan Center study found that over half of voting-eligible women do not have proof of citizenship with their current names.

A recent study in the Election Law Journal also found that one in ten Caucasian voters lack necessary identification, whereas the figure for African Americans is twice as high.

In Wisconsin, for example, a 2005 study found that 78% of African American men between 18 and 24 years of age lack a driver’s license. “[D]ue to varying levels of political resources (time, money, political sophistication, etc.) the impact of additional hurdles, like voter-ID laws, is most pronounced on specific segments of the electorate, including the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and those with less educational attainment and lower incomes.”

The full report can be found here.

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.

Last week, the House endorsed Rep. Jim Guest's "crusade" against Real ID-compliant drivers licenses. The debate on the bill was frustrating, infuriating, hilarious and irrational -- all at the same time. And while Republicans fought amongst themselves about the sensibility of legislating against conspiracy theories, they simultaneously undermined one of their key arguments for this week's expected battle on Photo ID legislation.

Lost in the hyperbole and conspiracy theories on Real ID was one point of agreement from all sides: that it is very difficult for some Missourians -- and a hassle for many more  -- to obtain the key documents needed for a driver's license or photo id. Guest described the process for obtaining a driver's license as "very difficult" in a debate with Rep. Mike Talboy (D-Kansas City), and Rep. Ryan Silvey (R-Kansas City) challenged Guest (a fellow Republican) at length about the bureaucratic hassles of obtaining identification.

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.

Speaking at a Senate committee hearing this afternoon, Sen. Matt Bartle (R-Lee Summitt) summed up GOP opposition to early voting legislation succinctly: the GOP won't make voting easier (with early voting) unless they can enact Photo ID legislation (to disenfranchise more than 200,000 voters).

Like Rep. Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia), the champion of GOP voter suppression efforts in the House, Bartle isn't really trying to conceal the partisan motivations behind attempts to make voting as inconvenient and burdensome as possible on behalf of the Republican Party.  I guess there's something to be said for honesty.

Wouldn't having more people involved in democracy be a good thing?  And wouldn't it be better for everyone if the GOP worried more about doing what voters want, and less about making voting onerous? 

Watching the hearing on the GOP's vote suppression photo ID proposal this morning, I was both surprised and relieved that sponsor Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia) and his fellow Republicans decided against the usual make-up-the-facts strategy employed by photo ID proponents.  Instead, they seem to have chosen the less persuasive (but more honest) route of offering no compelling reason for their constitutional amendment whatsoever.

When asked to provide an example of the fraud that necessitates a change to the state constitution, Cox couldn't provide a single example of voter fraud in Missouri.  Instead, Cox could only say the he was "sure" that fraud was occurring, maybe "tens" or "hundreds" of times per year. He didn't bother with trying to provide any evidence -- probably because there isn't any -- and also acknowledged that the state already requires voters to provide valid identification before voting.