A Missouri judge today struck down a Missouri constitutional amendment that would have established a photo ID requirement to vote.
Cole County Circuit Court Judge Patricia Joyce ruled that the referendum language, which was to appear on the Nov. 6 ballot, was “misleading” and “unfair.”
“This is a victory for voting rights and it affirms the most fundamental constitutional guarantee for every citizen in Missouri,” said Rep. William “Lacy” Clay (D-Mo.). “Today’s ruling blocks a blatant attempt to disenfranchise seniors, students, the disabled, minorities and the rural poor.“
The summary in question was: “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to adopt the Voter Protection Act and allow the General Assembly to provide by general law for advance voting prior to election day, voter photo identification requirements, and voter requirements based on whether one appears to vote in person or by absentee ballot?”
To appear on the ballot, state legislators need to rewrite the summary and pass the revised version by May 18.
“The misleading ballot language was designed to confuse Missouri voters into approving an amendment that could have disenfranchised up to 350,000 registered voters,” Clay said.
He and other activists have been trying to defeat the voter ID effort in the state.
Mr. Clay,
Tough to have felons and illegal immigrants vote Democratic with this law, isn’t it? I can understand your concern.
I completely agree with a Voter ID requirement, but I’m not sure what that has to do with felons.
For the record, I support the right of people convicted of a felony that have served their sentence to be able to vote.
The ID requirement is about integrity. The felony thing just undermines the veracity of the judicial system. If you’ve satisfied the court’s requirements, why shouldn’t you be able to vote? There are lots of different types of felonies. I don’t believe that you should be able to vote from prison or jail IF you’ve been convicted and are serving a sentence.
I think that by conflating the two issues, the waters are unnecessarily muddied.
Bull. The restoration of voting rights is not automatic upon release from prison, state dependent.
Sorry to be a little blunt here, but if there are any other liberal memes you want to sign up for without realizing you are doing so, go right on ahead. Felons traditionally have not been able to vote just becuase they have been released from prison. Thus is because since ce they were felons, society has not been that anxious to let them do so absent some further time since release to prove they truly are good citizens (i.e., when a prison guard isn’t always watching). Thus, they have “paid a debt”–but are not yet creditors.
And since the black community has a higher percentage of felons, that is one reason they don’t like this law. Sorry to be a jerk, but I am tired of good rules in society being chunked overboard just because certain sgements in society can’t hack it, for whatever reason, or find it inconvenient (illegal aliens)–and not because the rule itself is bad. There is nothing but disaster for all in going down that path, and I will point you to the housing bubble for a reference point.
Sorry to be rude when I say this, but get a clue.
Tell you what, partner. I’ll make you a counter-proposal. You wish to have full restoration upon completion of court requirements. I wish to have such done only when sustained good behavior outside prison walls has been established (as for some reason I do not feel prison is a good civic training ground quite yet). I will not acquiesce on this.
So I propose a period of “civic probtion” to be tacked onto every sentence, say five years for someone who served three years, maybe one year for someone who served twenty (I personaly have no issue with it being age-related, with a shorter period for an older man). Said “civic probation” to be nothing else than how long you have to wait to have full restoration of rights.
But I am not accepting full restoration the second they let you out the doors. Period. And so far, I have not been alone.
Because, otherwise, and I apologize for saying it the way I am about to say it–but otherwise, with arguing for full restoration upon release, you are arguing that the recividivst who is just in between his murders and rapes should have the same weight in society as I do, and I am not standing for that.
As with anything, If you wish to have good citizenship, you must put a premium on it, and not treat it as a bagatelle of trifling consequence that can never be lost, since it is of no great value. You cheapen my adherence to the laws when you do that–and you cut off at the knees those who obey rules when many in their comunities don’t. It may be considered “hard” by some, but in my opinion is the only way forward for those areas.
I believe in redemption. I do not believe in automatic ones, and I believe such redemption must come from one’s own self-control, not the control that comes in the form of fences, guards, and bars.
In what way was that language misleading? (I have not read the actual text, unless that is the text rather than a summary of it.) but it seemed clear to me what was in question. Unless of course the judge struck it down because he doesn’t agree with it, which while wrong would at least make sense.
Kansas City, MO and St. Louis are well-known hotbeds of illegitimate voting. ACORN was behind it in each place. The shenanigans are well-known, with large blocs of votes coming in at the last second (or even beyond the times the polls closed, due to “irregularities”, the main one being that Dems were behind and had to make up the difference at the last second.
HUGE corruption.
Lacy Clay is a scumbag who doesn’t deserve any office at any level. Just another Dem corruptocrat.
I’m always confused by state court judges unilaterally overturning laws in this manner. The sole basis for this judge’s decision was her subjective notion of a referendum’s language being “unfair” and “misleading”. Nothing based in fact, legal precedent, or logic.
Doesn’t the state justice system have an implied legal obligation to secure the full legitimacy of every citizen’s vote on the final outcome of the electoral process? The core principle of our country’s constitution is the sacred right of every citizens to have an equal say in who will represent them in the federal government. If government officials willfully refuse to take reasonable actions necessary to prevent individuals not qualified to vote from participating in the electoral process, and since each such illegitimate vote essentially nullifies a legitimate vote, don’t those officials have some legal liability?