Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

MO Disenfranchisement Fight Moves to State Senate

avatar

By Nathan Henderson-James

In the wake of increasing media scrutiny and aggressive push-back from voting rights activists, the fight over Missouri’s proposed Constitutional amendment requiring proof of citizenship documents in order to register to vote moves to the State Senate today. The New York Times chose to make this issue the lead story on their front page today, Monday May 11, 2008 and Art Levine, writing at the Huffington Post gives a very good analysis of the potential impact of the law and the work being done both to push this draconian voter disenfranchisement measure and to fight for the voting rights of up to 240,000 Missouri voters.

In this posting from Friday, Project Vote noted the potential danger from the measure and showed how the Missourians for Fair Elections coalition was working to preserve voting rights.

The New York Times notes that this kind of law would substantially raise the bar for eligible voters seeking to exercise their constitutionally-protected right to vote.

Measures requiring proof of citizenship raise the bar higher because they offer fewer options for documentation. In most cases, aspiring voters would have to produce an original birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport. Many residents of Arizona and Missouri already have citizenship information associated with their driver’s licenses, and within a few years all states will be required by the federal government to restrict licenses to legal residents.

Critics say that when this level of documentation is applied to voting, it becomes more difficult for the poor, disabled, elderly and minorities to participate in the political process.

"Everyone has been focusing on voter ID laws generally, but the most pernicious measures and the ones that really promise to prevent the most eligible voters from voting is what we see in Arizona and now in Missouri," said Jon Greenbaum, a former voting rights official at the Department of Justice and now the director of the voting rights project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a liberal advocacy group.

The Huffington Post shows how this measure, while couched in rhetoric about preserving the integrity of the ballot by protecting it from voter fraud, is really a measure aimed at keeping certain groups from participating at their full potential.

But protecting voters from fraud isn't the real goal of this measure - it's just helping GOP officials hold on to political power by blocking Democratic-leaning voters, critics say. "Their spin is that the elections are overrun with fraud," says the non-partisan Missouri ACORN's legislative director, Julie Terbrock. "But this measure effectively disenfranchises all these voters," she says, citing the Secretary of State's report on citizens without ID.

At a fair-election coalition press conference at the League of Women Voters' headquarters in Jefferson City, a few nuns came forward to express their concerns that the Catholic sisters in their convents lack the required ID. In fact, before the news conference, Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary in St. Louis reported the results of an informal survey of nuns in her order. "Fifteen [of 35 voters] did not have state-issued photo IDs," she observed. "This may sound like a good idea at first, but once you stop to think about who would really be affected, this is going to keep a lot of our loved ones from being able to vote."

The strict documentary requirements can be hard for Missouri nuns and other senior citizens, even married women of all ages, in obtaining their birth certificates. A survey by NYU's Brennan Center for Justice found that 52 percent of married woman don't have a birth certificate in their current name, and 17 percent of citizens age 65 and over don't have access to any citizenship documents.

At the press conference, Lillie Lewis, an elderly African-American woman, told how she struggled to get a birth certificate in order to secure a state-issued photo ID under the state's rigid "Show Me Proof" law passed in 2005. "I have tried everything to get a copy of my birth certificate," Lewis said, "but Mississippi says they have no record of my birth." So she likely won't be able to obtain a new driver's license, and, as a result, she declared, "My right to vote will be denied."

Today the Missouri State Senate holds hearings on the proposed Constitutional Amendment, which passed the state house on a party-line vote on Thursday. Missourians for Fair Elections will be working hard to make the case that this measure would stop legitimate voters from voting while being enacted to protect the state from a problem, voter impersonation, which simply does not exist.

If you want to learn more about this issue, contact Laura Egerdal at 314-363-5571 or Missourians for Fair Elections at mofairelections@gmail.com.


Comments (1)

Once again, Democrats miss the point of how to effectively communicate with the public to combat another right wing initiative. I dont' disagree with any of the points made above, it's just that it isn't effective communication with anyone beyond those who are highly interested and who make an effort to stay well informed (and that isn't the average citizen who simply doesn't take that much of an interest in the minutae of such issues).

The general public is not paying attention long enough to absorb all of the perfectly sensible and correct arguments the Democrats provide against these attempts to erect barriers to participation in voting by Democratic voters, most notably the low-income population and minority voters. You can win the official argument and get your tail kicked politically as Democrats sadly seem to be so fond of doing on so many issues.

Legally speaking we know Missouri's constitution disallowed the previous attempt to keep some voters from casting ballots. Now with the entirely political and unjustifiable "decision" of the wingnuts on the Supreme Court to enable this new version of voting tests and poll taxes, the Missouri Republicans instantly knew what to do and are acting on it. They are morons, of course, but their sole focus is on gaining advantage and winning at all costs so they are not burdened (as most Democrats are) with worrying about things like right and wrong. It is all very simple for the Republicans: whatever gives Republicans the advantage is right and whatever doesn't is wrong.

As soon as the court ruling came down they were instantly back on their high horses about "voting security" and "preventing vote fraud" and making sure people can have "confidence in our elections" and the voting results in the state. As though there's some kind of epidemic of voter fraud throughout the state of Missouri. Boo! Be scared everybody! If we don't do something we'll be overwhelmed by nonexistent black votes! All hogwash of course, but it makes no difference that they are lying to the people about this "problem". The only thing that matters to them is the endless repetition of those key phrases and making sure that they are what the public hears about this issue. And politically speaking they are right on the money while Democrats are distracted by frivolous things like the truth and the details and making a logical, sound argument. As long as the public thinks there's a need to "secure" the vote and "prevent fraud" then Republicans are free to hoodwink the gullible public at large and ride roughshod over the rights of as many black and low-income voters as possible in order to try and gain an advantage in elections. They know it, we know it, but the public doesn't really know it and won't because the media won't point out that the Republicans are lying. They will only report the "he said/she said" version of the issue and will dodge their responsibility to report the truth and reality of the news as always.

The Democratic response is long-winded, boring, filled with all the relevant details and the public only retains a little bit of what the argument actually is. But they do know that the Democrats are back trying to defend black people again because they are talking about the poor which is more often than not just a coded euphemism for "black" people even though there are more poor whites than there are poor blacks.

It would be far more effective for the Democrats to keep their arguments short, to the point and clearly understood to wit:

"There is no voting fraud problem. Period."

"The only purpose of this law is to prevent Democrats from voting in order to help Republicans by making it unnecessarily difficult to register and to vote."

It's just that simple folks!

No matter what the Republicans say, our responses should be limited to these points over and over and over so that the public will understand what our side's message is too and not just the message of the Republicans. If we don't do it this way or some way very like it, we will continue to be right and the public will not genuinely understand why we are against "vote security" and "making sure our elections are not tainted" by voter fraud. The extremists on the Supreme Court have made it clear we will no longer be winning such legal battles so we need to make sure we win the political battles.

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address