Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democratic officials challenge rule on provisional voting (Missouri)
Jefferson City News Tribune ^ | Tuesday, October 22, 2002 | PAUL SLOCA

Posted on 10/22/2002 6:39:45 PM PDT by BOBWADE

Democratic officials challenge rule on provisional voting

By PAUL SLOCA The Associated Press

Two Democratic elected officials are challenging a new election rule by Republican Secretary of State Matt Blunt in a case that could determine how easy it is for some Missourians to vote Nov. 5.

At issue is a state law passed earlier this year that allows a person whose eligibility is questioned to cast a "provisional ballot" in federal and state races. The ballot is counted only if the person's eligibility is later verified.

To implement the law, Blunt's office drafted rules that took effect Monday.

A lawsuit filed late Friday by State Auditor Claire McCaskill and Sen. Maida Coleman, both Democrats, argues that the rules impose more restrictions than allowed under the law and should be barred from use in the elections.

"The emergency rules are simply a ploy to keep people away from the polls and continue to confuse our voters," said Coleman of St. Louis, where numerous voting problems occurred during the November 2000 elections.

Democrat Gov. Bob Holden also spoke out against the rules Monday, criticizing them for coming so close to the election and saying they could have "political ramifications."

"Making it difficult to vote may turn some people away from voting," Holden said in a telephone interview.

"We should all be encouraging as many people as possible to go out and vote."

Blunt said that was his intent. He said the rules, and the new law, are aimed at preventing voter fraud like occurred in St. Louis.

Following the November 2000 elections, Blunt released a report concluding that court orders issued in the city and county of St. Louis improperly allowed 1,233 people to vote.

Also in 2000, hundreds of voters were turned away from the polls in St. Louis, prompting a judge to order the polls open after their scheduled closing -- a decision overruled later that night.

The legal challenge by McCaskill and Coleman is "an attempt by the plaintiffs and anybody aligned with them to try and help those candidates that they favor on Election Day," Blunt said.

McCaskill said the lawsuit was not designed to be partisan but rather is aimed at allowing as many people as possible to vote.

"I think this is something a court needs to clarify," McCaskill said. "This is too important not to have a court look at it."

On Monday, Cole County Circuit Judge Byron Kinder heard brief arguments, then delayed the case until Thursday, saying he needed more time to review it and attorneys needed time to gather more witnesses.

Under Blunt's rule, a voter can cast a provisional ballot if eligibility cannot be immediately established by one of three means:

* A central precinct office, after being contacted by an election judge, determines it has no record of a voter.

* A voter's name does not appear on a precinct register and election judges cannot reach a central voting office.

* A person's name is not on the voter registration files when an absentee ballot is requested.

"All we're talking about is someone making a phone call," said Vicky Mahon, an assistant attorney general representing Blunt's office. "The rule is designed to ensure uniformity among all election authorities."

Mahon said the plaintiffs' arguments could turn precinsts into a "one-stop shop for voting."

But St. Louis attorney Don Downing, representing McCaskill and Coleman, said the rule goes beyond the law's requirement that a voter whose eligibility cannot "immediately" be determined should be given a provisional ballot. He said voters should not have to wait while poll workers make phone calls.

"The rule will deny thousands of Missouri voters the right to vote by provisional ballot," Downing said.

"The rule undermines what the statute was supposed to accomplish."

Mahon said election workers across the state have been attending seminars to learn the new provisional voting system.

The provisional voting legislation passed earlier this year and signed by Holden was part of a larger elections bill that grew out of voting problems in the 2000 elections in St. Louis and Florida.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: electionreform; missouri; votefraud; voterfraud
Democrats are worried that fraud my be down this year.
1 posted on 10/22/2002 6:39:45 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
I guess Show Me your eligiblity doesn't count in the Show Me State.
2 posted on 10/22/2002 6:44:47 PM PDT by boomop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
How does making a phone call deny anyone a vote, unless they weren't registered in the first place?
3 posted on 10/22/2002 6:48:44 PM PDT by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Vote Fraud
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
4 posted on 10/22/2002 7:07:25 PM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: copycat
Denying votes is not the issue, verifying eligibility is.
5 posted on 10/22/2002 7:09:15 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: boomop1
The demoncrats are worried after the widder's poor showing last night. They may not even be able to generate enough votes in St Louis to pull this one off.
6 posted on 10/22/2002 7:11:02 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
Jeez...the Dems aren't going to be happy until all votes can be ASSUMED to be for them.
7 posted on 10/22/2002 7:13:56 PM PDT by chnsmok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chnsmok
I think the Dims are going to be just plain unhappy after 11/05/02. :^)
8 posted on 10/22/2002 7:17:15 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
All those lawyers waiting to pounce are making me nervous.
9 posted on 10/22/2002 7:20:24 PM PDT by chnsmok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: copycat
" Hey, I know my name is not on you're precinct list, but I want to vote dammit! What do you mean my vote doesn't count until I'm verified as legitimate? ID? Uhmmmm,.... no, I don't have it with me. I didn't have to show ID at the 17 other polling places I went to today. This is disenfranchisment. Somebody get me Johhny Cochran on the phone!"

This is pure, in your face, fraud.

10 posted on 10/22/2002 7:25:13 PM PDT by Benjamin Dover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
Texas has a similar law, we call it challenged voter. If the voters status cannot be quickly confirmed yea or nay, by a phone call, that ballot is put into an envelope containing the ballot and signed affidavits of the election judge and voter. If, as they say in the NFL, upon further review the voter is found legit, the ballot counts, if not, it is tossed unopened. The ballot itself is not seen by the presiding judge, the voter seals the envelope. It is rare in most areas, I have run elections for ten years and never had to process one. I hear South Texas has more of a fraud problem and sees this more often. It took us a while to iron out the fine points, but Missouri sounds like they are on the right track for a first time.
11 posted on 10/22/2002 8:38:32 PM PDT by barkeep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE; Liz; Mudboy Slim; Howlin
He said voters should not have to wait while poll workers make phone calls.

Especially if the voter is from another country.

Amazing...

12 posted on 10/23/2002 6:12:24 AM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; Fracas
Where is the outrage? DemoRats are uninhibited about flaunting their corruption.
13 posted on 10/23/2002 7:05:15 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Liz
"DemonRATS are uninhibited about flaunting their corruption."

Why should they be? The Vast LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd has decided to give the RATS a pass on rampant corruption, so most of the Sheeple are clueless!!

FReegards...MUD

14 posted on 10/23/2002 7:19:39 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
"DemonRAT Gov. Bob Holden also spoke out against the rules Monday, criticizing them for coming so close to the election and saying they could have "political ramifications."

So the Top Executive Branch official in Missouri is arguing that VoteFraud should be made easier...sounds soooo Clintonian!!

Come on Missouri, SHOW ME y'all ain't about to stand by and let yer State become the laughing-stock of the Nation!! Well, after NooJoisey, of course!!

IMPEACH Gov. Holden fer Dereliction of Duty!!

FReegards...MUD

15 posted on 10/23/2002 7:29:06 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
They may not even be able to generate enough votes in St Louis to pull this one off.

Exactly. They may have to get some of the cross-over votes from East St. Louis to make up the difference. I hope for the sake of taxpayer dollars that the phone call for verification of the voter status is not a long-distance call to the East St. Lousi DemocRAT headquarters.

16 posted on 10/23/2002 1:44:59 PM PDT by OrioleFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson