Something for everyone?

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.

Second: Does Kraske think that that early voting is some sort of nefarious plot by Democrats skew election results? I'm not sure what data he would have to support that.  Early voting may not increase turnout after all. Matt Blunt supported early voting. Heck, even Republicans in the state legislature used to support early voting. And more than 30 states have some form of early voting.

Or does Kraske think that Photo ID requirements would be some sort of great public policy?  I honestly have no idea what to make of his line, "Never mind that most of them are probably Democrats."  From a moral and ethical and good government standpoint standpoint, it makes exactly zero difference how they'll vote.  Actively working to keep them out of voting booth is just wrong.  Is he dismissing the desire to disenfranchise 200,000 people as some sort of quaint political spat? 

On the other hand, from the perspective of a reporter or columnist who's trying to educate his readers, the fact that Republicans are working to amend the constitution so that it's more difficult for 200,000 people to vote for no good reason is a pretty relevant detail.

Some clarification is order.

While he's at it, Maybe Kraske could also weigh in on the wisdom of writing a not-yet-tried-in-Missouri early voting policy into the very-hard-to-amend state constitution, instead of doing it by statute first.