Posted on 07/18/2006 6:04:57 PM PDT by MissouriConservative
JEFFERSON CITY | - Jackson County Executive Katheryn Shields and other Democrats filed a legal challenge Monday to a new Missouri law that requires voters to show photo identification at the polls.
The lawsuit filed in Cole County Circuit Court alleges that the law violates the Hancock Amendment to the state constitution by putting unfunded mandates on local election authorities.
Shields, a Democrat, and Jackson County signed on as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, as did the city of St. Louis and its Democratic mayor, Francis Slay. Charlie Dooley, the Democratic executive of St. Louis County, also is a plaintiff.
“I feel very strongly the state has violated the Missouri Constitution when they pass new responsibilities for the counties and don’t provide money to pay for them,” Shields said.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, which helped file the lawsuit, estimated that the photo ID law would cost Jackson County $470,000.
“The state has burdened qualified citizens of our state with new hurdles to get over in order to exercise their right to vote,” said Brenda Jones, executive director of the ACLU branch. “In addition, the dictates of the law will drain general resources of local governments and cost taxpayers money.”
The lawsuit contends that the law will make local election authorities spend money on voter notification cards, more absentee and provisional ballots, additional staff training and other costs.
Republicans, who had argued that the law was necessary to fight vote fraud, were not surprised by the lawsuit.
“We expected the challenge,” said Delbert Scott, a Lowry City Republican who sponsored the measure in the state Senate. “Throughout the process, we made every effort for the cost to be borne by the state and not the local governments.”
The law, which Gov. Matt Blunt signed June 14, requires voters in the Nov. 7 general election to present a driver’s license or some other government-issued photo identification. Voters who are elderly, have disabilities or have religious objections to presenting a photo ID could cast provisional ballots after signing affidavits.
The votes would be counted if election judges could match the voters’ signatures on the affidavits with ones on file.
Under previous law, voters had to present identification, but it did not have to be a driver’s license or other form of photo ID.
It could have been a copy of an electric bill, a bank statement, a paycheck or a voter ID card issued by local election authorities.
A person also could have cast a regular ballot if election judges attested to the voter’s identity.
The new law also says that for all elections until Nov. 1, 2008, voters without proper identification could cast provisional ballots if two election judges knew the voter or if the voter presented another form of ID, such as an out-of-state driver’s license, student ID, utility bill, paycheck or other government document.
After Nov. 1, 2008, voters who do not have proper photo IDs and who are not disabled or elderly, or who do not have religious objections, still could cast provisional ballots.
The votes would not count, unless those voters came back later and showed photo IDs.
Two attorneys who helped file the lawsuit, Richard Miller of Kansas City and Burton Newman of St. Louis, challenged Missouri’s concealed-weapons law in 2004. In that case, the Missouri Supreme Court partly struck down the law because it imposed an unfunded mandate on local governments.
Last week a federal judge in Georgia blocked that state’s photo identification law from taking effect in elections this year.
Paul Sloca, spokesman for the Missouri Republican Party, called the lawsuit filed Monday a “frontal political assault” against voters who want fair elections.
“This is obviously a lawsuit orchestrated by Democrats,” Sloca said.
Shields said the lawsuit was about unfunded mandates, not partisan politics.
She added, though: “If it’s only Democrats that are going to step forward and challenge the state on that, then so be it.”
Looks like the democrats want to keep dead people voting to keep their stranglehold on counties. This is also going to be big because the democrats are making a strong push to unseat Senator Jim Talent this coming November.
This law should stand, but it shows how desperate the democrats are the closer the elections gets.
Democrats are so damm evil & corrupt it sickens me :-(
They are doing this under the guise of an unfunded mandate but everyone knows the truth. The law was written for this type of challenge and if common sense prevails, this challenge will be dismissed with a hearty laugh.
But, seeing as how Georgia's law was put on hold, who knows how a judge will rule.
Could not agree more. They are nothing but a subversive agency hell bent on the destruction of our Republic.
I don't want people who are so lazy or don't have the gumption to get a state issued ID card voting!
For our next trick, the absentee voting system needs a good tightening up as well across this nation.
The Democrats in the United States, like their international counterparts, the Communists can only win by lies, deceit,and treachery.
"bwawawawawawaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
"It's not fair to disenfranchise our dead, felons and illegals!"
"How else can we win!"
"Remember vote against Bush in 2008! Vote twice to stop the imperialist fascist Bush!"
f'n Democheats!
"IT'S TIME TO KICK THE ACLU OUT OF THIS COUNTRY"
Right on! Along with the UN!
Those who oppose photo ID favor voter fraud.
And we all know how concerned the ACLU is with saving taxpayers money. < /sarc>
"They are doing this under the guise of an unfunded mandate but everyone knows the truth. The law was written for this type of challenge ...."
Just wondering how they wrote the law to get around the unfunded mandate law ?
It would seem that showing the Dems how to get around laws like that would be a bad thing in the long run.
In Georgia the card would be free and if you can't get out of the house, no problem, someone will come to your house, take your picture and give you an Id.
Furthermore, if you don't have the Id, you can still vote and your vote will be counted when verified.
What more could one ask for?
Other posters have it right. The dems are all for election fraud.
Yes! Whenever bicycles are broken, or menaced by International Communism, Bicycle Repair Man is ready!
Ready to smash the communists, wipe them up, and shove them off the face of the earth...
Mash that dirty red scum, kick 'em in the teeth where it hurts.
Kill! Kill! Kill! The filthy bastard commies, I hate 'em! I hate 'em! Aaargh! Aaargh!
/python
The law was written so that most of the expense is picked up by the state of Missouri, not the county or city governments. While the county will have to pay something, they are exaggerating the amount of expense. Much like the democrats exaggerate anything that has to do with taxpayer dollars or money in general.
The Missouri law even stated that the state would send around registration buses that would give you a state ID with photo for free.
And also the Anti-American Hollywierd crowd.
Sure, the Alliance of Communist and Liberals Unhinged (ACLU) is a pain in all our butts.
However, don't y'all see an even more insidious development (not that we are not all aware of this situation, but it bears repeating as it is becoming even more prevalent) which is that whereby ONE--and only ONE-- unelected judicial official, can stymie the will of a majority of the population of a State as well as stop dead in its tracks, the laws voted on by a duly constituted legislative body as well as endorsed by the States' Governors?
" Last week a federal judge in Georgia blocked that state’s photo identification law from taking effect in elections this year."
This is what I mean. It is happening more and more throughout our country.
It seems no matter what laws are enacted (of course, I mean those intended to benefit or endorse conservative causes) there seems to be no shortage of Fed Judges ready, willing and (unfortunately) able to issue their restraining orders, thereby effectively, killing these measures, for by the time the cases wind their way through the appellate procedures, it will be years and whatever good may have been realized therefrom, will no longer be germane by that time.
Of course, if these Fed Judges keep thwarting the will of the people, I can also envision that sooner or later, there will be a backlash to the extent that pressure will be brought to bear on Congress to amend the Constitution thereby allowing the removal of the lifetime tenure for said judges and/or a mechanism instituted for recall as well as removal from the bench.
AND IT WILL BE NONE TOO SOON!!
My question is..the ACLU can sue everything including my socks, why can't they start getting sued?
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.