Missouri House Votes To Disenfranchise 240,000

Missouri lawmakers this week are working to rush legislation that would prevent up to 240,000 Missourians from voting. The proposed legislation would make Missouri one of the toughest states in the country for eligible citizens who want to vote by requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. If passed, these changes could be in place by the November general election.

Joint Resolution 48 passed the Missouri House yesterday on a party-line 88-69 vote and now awaits action in the Senate. If passed, it would place a referendum before the voters in August which, if approved, would go into effect for the November 2008 election.

This resolution is superfluous for Missouri, where proponents have yet to show a single case of voter impersonation from recent elections, yet imposes high burdens on eligible voters to comply, as noted by Denise Lieberman, a lawyer and voter protection advocate with Advancement Project in Missouri.

"Missouri already has a voter identification law that ensures that eligible voters are who they say they are on Election Day. Even if photo IDs are provided free of cost, obtaining the underlying documents needed to prove your identity costs money and can be difficult or impossible to obtain. No Missourian should be deprived of the right to vote because government bureaucracy will not provide them a copy of their birth certificate."

Lillie Lewis, St. Louis resident, knows that frustration.

"I have tried everything to get a copy of my birth certificate," says Lewis, "but Mississippi says they have no record of my birth."

Although she believes she was born in 1935, the social security administration says her year of birth was 1936. Because she is not able to obtain a birth certificate and because of the confusion surrounding her birth, Mrs. Lewis may not be able to vote under the proposed voter photo ID law.

Statistics on Proof of Citizenship
A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that 52 percent of married women don't have a birth certificate in their current name, and 17 percent of citizens age 65 and over don't have access to citizenship documents. That translates into 600,000 Missouri women and 17,000 Missouri seniors.

Further, a February Rock the Vote survey also showed that 19 percent of citizens age 18-29 do not have their current address on their ID. Establishing these rigid documentation requirements could keep hundreds of thousands of Missourians from casting a vote at the polls this November.

A Taste of What's To Come?
At Tuesday's Indiana primary twelve nuns were turned away from the polls because they lacked the needed government-issued photo IDs to vote. When Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary in St. Louis heard the story, she did an informal survey of 35 nuns in her convent. Fifteen did not have state-issued photo IDs.

"This may sound like a good idea at first," stated Sister Schwartz, "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."

Sister Schwartz and others are concerned that strict documentary identification requirements would create hardships for Missouri nuns and other senior citizens.

Taking Action
Missourians for Fair Elections, a coalition of voting rights groups that includes the League of Women Voters, AARP and others, convened in St. Louis yesterday to encourage the Missouri State Senate to vote the legislation down. Supporters included Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and citizens who would not meet the law's strict documentation requirements.  

If you would like to know what you can do about this issue, contact Laura Egerdal, Missourians for Fair Elections at 314-363-5571.



Display:


Re: Missouri House Votes To Disenfranchise 240,000 (2.00 / 2)

Hey, McCain will LOVE this bill?

Probably make a lot of our newly minted Republics happy as well?

God, I hate Republics. I really do.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:14:05 PM EST

Re: Missouri House Votes To Disenfranchise 240,000 (2.00 / 1)

This stuff is horrible.  

I swear, could the Republicans tell the young and the old that they don't matter any more clearly if they tried?

Then again, maybe they are trying.


the third eye does not weep. it knows.
by mijita on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:29:49 PM EST

Re: Missouri House Votes To Disenfranchise 240,000 (2.00 / 1)

Disgusting.  The Supreme Court should be ashamed that they set a precedent that will allow this kind of thing.


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:22:06 PM EST

Re: Missouri House Votes To Disenfranchise 240,000 (none / 0)

It should simply be ashamed...


by zerosumgame on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and this is where the battle is (2.00 / 1)

right at the state legislatures, and why our efforts cannot be a "flash in the pan", they have to be sustained and carried out at the local level.  Easy to call "shame", harder to actually take action.

Thanks for the information and contact. I'm making a call.


by 4justice on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:06:39 PM EST

Like the Indiana law... (2.00 / 2)

... it's clear where this one is aimed. Everyone knows that voter ID laws are Republican tactics aimed at disenfranchising Democratic voters.

Now I don't want to start a food fight here, but this is one reason why it's so important that the Democratic Party find some way to resolve the Florida and Michigan situations. The Democratic Party must always be on the side of enfranchising voters.

There were some who argued that hey, well, the Florida and Michigan voters elected the officials that moved their primaries up and got their delegates removed, and they have to live with the consequences.

Well, Missouri voters elected the clowns who are in the process of disenfranchising all of these voters now. Isn't it their own damn fault? Of course not.

The right to vote and to be heard is sacred. It was the cause of the American Revolution, and the cause of the civil rights movement. Democrats must always be on the side of protecting the right to vote. Always.


by OrangeFur on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:06:56 AM EST

Re: Missouri House Votes To Disenfranchise 240,000 (2.00 / 1)

You did not mention that the 12 nuns who were denied the right to vote in Indiana included one who was 98 years old and had a passport but it was expired.  This is blantant voter suppression.


by DemoDan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:55:06 AM EST

On expired documents (2.00 / 1)

It amazes me that a document such as a passport can properly identify you one day, but the very next day-- because it has expired-- it is suddenly not good enough to establish that you're the same person. It's ridiculous.


by Swedie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:30:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2 good examples (2.00 / 1)

1) In the late 60s my mother (who was born in 1915) needed a copy of her birth certificate and dutifully sent away for it. Lo and behold, there was no record of it. It took her several weeks of phone calls and letters, aided by a civil servant who cared enough to keep on it, to get things straightened out. Here's what happened:

Her mother was an immigrant from Sweden. When Mom was born, my little Swedish granny (whose English was still not that good) filled out the appropriate forms naming my mom Mary Adeline. Later on, granny decided she didn't like that name and changed it to Helen Adele, but she didn't know that she had to have it legally changed. So my mom lived her whole life up to that time not knowing that her name was Mary, lol. Mom eventually got her birth certificate, but she never did have her name legally changed to reflect the name she used all her life.

2) My dad was born, at home, in Oklahoma in 1908. There was no official record of his birth, no form filled out, etc. At the age of 5, he (and his family, of course) moved to Canada, where he grew up. He returned to the USA when he was around 21, and tried to join the Army. Well, he needed proof of his American citizenship. After a lot of time and trouble he finally found a census report that listed him and so his citizenship was finally established.

There are countless similar scenarios today, especially among older Americans. I wonder if my parents' ID would be enough to get them a voter ID card in today's environment?


by Swedie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:28:52 PM EST

How can married women have a birth certificate (none / 0)

In their current name?

I don't get that. It's always in your birth name, then you have proof of marriage in your current name if you changed your name when marrying.

To get my SS card changed, I had to present all those kinds of documents.


by splashy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:28:15 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.