MO Supreme Court Strikes Down Voter ID Law

The Missouri Supreme Court just released a 6-1 decision striking down the Jim Talent Protection Act.

Topics:

The Ballot Issue sign in the churchyard cuts both ways...

...don't think I'm going to forget after the election when certain churches in town start looking for outside donations during the Christmas season for their philanthropic holiday doo-goodin'....or any doo-goodin' after that. I left the denomination I grew up in over little pink and blue flags in the churchyard, among a variety of other things, many years ago (but those flags were one of the last coffin nails in my ever feeling good about my church again). Back in the late 70's / early 80's I started realizing that my denomination was moving to the right of Ghengis Khan. By 1990ish, when I was living in Columbia I had told my denomination to take a hike.

When I moved back to Kirksville several years later, I ran into my pastor from when I lived there 25 years prior. He invited me to come to church. I was always very fond of this pastor, and thought of him as a relatively open minded person. I was seriously thinking of burying the hatchet and starting over simply because of my respect for my old pastor.

Then later that week, I drove by the church and there were all those little pink and blue flags in their churchyard. Forget that mess! I decided at first to merely just hold my tongue, say nothing, and just go on about my business. But Kirksville being Kirksville, wouldn't you know I ran into him at Hy-Vee. Again, he earnestly and good naturedly suggested I start coming back to my old church.

I respected the man too much to give him a white lie. So I looked at him and said, "Pastor, I have a ton of respect for you as a learned member of the clergy. I did when I was in college and I still do. I was all ready to take you up on your offer. But I drove by a while back and you all had a yard full of little pink and blue flags out there. Now mind you, I am no great fan of abortion. But I think that is a pregnant woman's business and her God's business for the most part, and it's only the church's business to tend to that woman's soul, no matter what choices she's made in life. When people see things like that in front of a church, it sends a message that you have to adhere to a particular political viewpoint to receive God's grace. I would not feel comfortable knowing that some woman out there who's had an abortion would feel alienated from attending the place where I worship, that she would have to feel like she has a secret sin that she could never reveal--because the church is where people are supposed to feel like they can unburden themselves of their troubles, not hide them." And that was that. Eventually, I did find a church in town that was a better "fit" so it all worked out for me but now and then I drive by my old church and feel a twinge of remorse that a place which once brought me spiritual comfort is no longer capable of doing that for me.

Churches who jump on political bandwagons are alienating potential worshippers. But in the zeal of their politics they don't seem to remember that. Sometimes I think of all the people out there who are truly hungry for God's grace but for reasons like that, don't come to God's table because they see one church acting that way and think all churches are like that. To me, that's the real sadness about it all.

amendment 2

i know this is off subject.  but are churches allowed to place polictial signs at a polling place.  i was driving by my polling place at cure of ars church on laclede station rd in st louis and they had a sign opposing amendment 2.  is that right?  are they allowed to do that?  i would appreciate any info on this. 

amendment 2

I noticed this yesterday at the local Catholic church. There were big signs and there were a lot of them. I couldn't believe it. The arrogance has no bounds. What can be done about this?

If you believe in free speech

If you believe in free speech, nothing.  See my post below for the reason.

yes

I'm pretty sure that tax exempt groups are forbidden from involvement in partisan politics, ie endorsing a candidate or party, but ballot initiatives are not partisan.

Yes

The deal with churches and other tax exempt non-profits is that 'no substantial amount' of their resources can be committed to issue advocacy without losing their tax status, and no, they can't endorse a candidate, though they could provide a forum for a debate between candidates. Technically, that means they can say, vote for X or Y issue, but they cannot say Vote for X or Y person who will promote that issue. As long as they're not spending a 'substantial' amount of their income on it, we gotta put up with it as free speech. (Quoted words are from the tax code.)

Even so, I'm pretty discusted with the churches who've been riding this Amendment 2 thing like a hobbyhorse.  What does the Missouri constitution have to do with medicine anyway? That should be or not be a law, not an amendment. What is it amending? I do wonder about the church in question though if it serves as a polling place. Likely they will have to respect the 50 ft limit  from the door  and no voter harassment like every other politico on Nov. 7.

 

 

The Bigger Picture -- Ballot Access

What a refreshing notion -- Democrats out of power are working hard to help ensure the fundamental right of citizens to vote in free and fair elections ... oh, wait, what are Dems going to do once in power?  Will they open ballot access and give citizens a real choice on the ballot?  Or do they want to keep the tired, corrupt, achingly restrictive system that we have now?  Please don't tell me you're just Rethugs in disguise, that you're the warmed over left-wing of the party of Big Money.  Take this opportunity from being in the minority to pick up a huge swath of disaffected voters -- and start talking about and doing something about an oppressive, costly, and ever growing government imposing its bureaucratic will on everyday Missourians.  Please?

Vote NO on Judge Stephen Limbaugh on Nov. 7

It gets better: Limbaugh, the only judge who wouldn't object to the unconstitutional law, is on the ballot for retention; let's kick him off.

Like I'd vote for anyone name

Like I'd vote for anyone named "Limbaugh"!  Thanks for the info though.

I want to add that I stood in line behind an elderly lady in a wheelchair at a discount store (not Wal-Mart) as she tried to write a check for her purchase.  The lady (white and about 85 or so) did not have a picture ID.  I noticed as she searched her wallet for an ID of some sort that she did have a voter registration card.  I do not see the point of denying this lady her right to vote after she had obviously been allowed to do so for many years.  (Her daughter finally had to show her own ID and co-sign the check for them to accept it.)

You see, it is not just minorities and the poor who would be disenfranchised, it is our elderly and disabled.

With voter turn out as embarrassingly low as it is in this country, why would politicians want to find a way to hinder those willing to vote?

Secretary Carnahan's statement

A Statement from Secretary of State Robin Carnahan Regarding Supreme Court Ruling on Photo ID Law

– Secretary of State Robin Carnahan today released the following statement:

"Today's ruling is a victory for Missouri voters. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold Judge Callahan's ruling provides absolute clarity that the photo ID law is unconstitutional and thus will not go into effect in Missouri.

It's my job to ensure fair elections, and elections cannot be fair if eligible voters are not allowed to vote. I'm pleased that this issue was resolved in a way that protects Missouri voters and preserves free and fair elections."

###

Advertisers