Breaking Election News in Missouri

[galloglas]

The decision of Judge Callahan has just been appealed to Missouri's Supreme Court!

Decision to be given prior to the General Election.

[notadmblnd]

1. and that decision was?

sorry< i haven't been following the story.

[galloglas]

5. To be.. to uphold the decision that the Photo ID

was unconstitutional.

More details here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=449642&mesg_id=449642

and here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x449427

[ikojo]

2. Is this related to voter ID?

Baby Blunt signed a voter ID requirement into law. A lot of low-income Missourians will have a difficult time getting a state ID.

[galloglas]

6. Yes it is!

Baby Blunt had his day in court one week ago, represented by Mark S. "Thor" Hearne of Carter-Baker Hearings and AC4VR.com infamy (the next Karl Rove).

Judge Callahan ruled the law unconstitutional. The GOP wants it appealed, so Democrat AG Jay Nixon went ahead and filed, hoping to get it out of the way.

So, the GOP is still alive on this thing. And none of us from ShowMe will now whether we need the Photo IDS until the Supreme Court of Missouri decides.

[cornermouse]

3. You knew they would.

[galloglas]

7. Especially since "Thor's" reputation is on the line..

"Thor" Hearne having been the counsel for Blunt, and the GOP memebers of the legislature.

[Melissa G]

9. Yeah Thor the "non partisan' voting rights advocate who testified

before the Baker, why did you get involved in this and lend any credence to it.. Carter commission...

[galloglas]

10. Just explaining why I think it was appealed

"Thor" Hearne is a weasel. But, he is also a Missouri lawyer, and represented Blunt and the GOP members of the Legislature who passed the abominable bill.

I was implying that "I knew it would happen", in my response to another poster who said the same, because it was a big, black eye to have had the law ruled unconstitutional.

Remember, among other things, "Mark S. "Thor" Hearne was the advisor to now-Gov. Matt Blunt when Blunt was the SoS.

And, if the data I have is correct, Claire McCaskill actually won the election, not Matt Blunt. And, of course, "Thor" Hearne oversaw the certification of those false election results.

Did you think that I was giving Hearne credibility?? Well, to clear up matters, know this.

I hate him worse than any person in Missouri. When John Ashcroft lost his Senate race to a dead man (Gov. Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash right before the election, but won anyway), "Thor" Hearne is the SOB who argued that Carnahan's win was not valid because "on the day of the election, Carnahan was no longer a citizen of Missouri."

My bumper had one of the first stickers that said, "We're still with you, Mel."

Does that make it clearer ??

And, BTW, Hearne is only second on my list. John Ashcroft is the most evil, repugnant bastard who ever lived. Except for luck, he would have had me dead!

Bu that is another story for another time.

[Melissa G]

11. No, I was not doubting You.. I was just trashing Thor baby.. who pretends

to be non partisan and comes out of nowwhere with his fake voting rights group and gets to testify as if he is for real! Just me ranting about him..nothing about your motivations.. sorry if I was not clear.:hug:

[eomer]

4. Is this the decision that's being appealed?

The one issued on 9/14/06 that, among other things, found a new photo ID requirement unconstitutional?

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/MophotoID.pdf

Excerpts from ruling:

-snip-

     Because of our societal custom of women modifying or changing their
name in marriage, these documentation requirements will have a greater
disparate effect on women rather than men, regardless of their affluence.
However, an even greater disparate effect will occur on poor women because
of the financial burden entailed in acquiring certified copies of all the
supporting documents.  The fact that the state does not charge for the
nondriver license itself (if obtained for the purpose of voting) does not avoid
the constitutional issue or economic reality that voters will have to "buy"
numerous government documents to get the "free" photo ID to qualify for the
privilege of voting.  While a license to drive may be just that: a license and
not a right.  The right to vote is just that: a right and not a license.

-snip-

     The photo ID burden placed on the voter may seem minor or
inconsequential to the mainstream of our society for whom automobiles,
driver licenses, and even passports are a natural part of everyday life.
However, for the elderly, the poor, the under-educated, or otherwise
disadvantaged, the burden can be great if not insurmountable, and it is those
very people outside the mainstream of society who are the least equipped to
bear the costs or navigate the many bureaucracies necessary to obtain the
required documentation.  For these reasons, this court concludes that
the voting restrictions imposed by SB 1014 impermissibly infringe on core
voting right guaranteed by the Missouri Constitution.

-snip-

     IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED AND
DECLARED, for the reasons set forth in this judgment and the
accompanying Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, that the new Section
115.427,Mo. Rev. Stat. (2006) enacted in the Missouri Voter Protection Act,
including its Photo ID Requirement, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that:
       (a)   It constitutes an impermissible additional qualification to
             vote in violation of Article VIII, Section 2 of the Missouri
             Constitution;
       (b)   It violates the prohibition on interference with the "free
             exercise of the right of suffrage" and the requirements that
             "all elections shall be free and open" contained in Article
             I, Section 25 of the Missouri Constitution
       (c)   It requires payment of money to vote, in violation of
             the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in Article
             I, Sections 10 and 2, respectively of the Missouri
             Constitution;
       (d)   It constitutes an undue burden on the fundamental right
             to vote that is not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling
             state interest, in violation of the Due Process and Equal
             Protection Clauses in Article I, Sections 10 and 2,
             respectively of the Missouri Constitution.

[galloglas]

8. Yep. That's the one. N/T

[galloglas]

12. UPDATED: Supreme Court Arguments set for Oct. 4th

JEFFERSON CITY | The battle over Missouri’s voter identification law is heading quickly to the state’s highest court.

The Missouri Supreme Court Thursday set Oct. 4 as a date to hear arguments in the case.

A Cole County judge last week threw out the law, which required voters to present state-issued photo IDs at the polls.

Circuit Judge Richard Callahan declared the law to be an infringement of the fundamental right to vote, ruling that the law placed an extra burden on the elderly, poor, minorities, women and others who have a harder time obtaining a state-issued ID.

In appealing the ruling, Attorney General Jay Nixon’s office Thursday asked the state Supreme Court to put the case on a fast track as the Nov. 7 general election approaches.

“Changing rules in the weeks leading up to an election is problematic,” Nixon’s office wrote in the appeal. “Voters need certainty as to what the requirements for voting will be. Also, election authorities need to be able to train poll workers and election judges with a single set of requirements. The alternative will assure confusion for voters and poll workers, resulting in chaos on Election Day.”

The high court agreed to set a hearing for Oct. 4, the same day it will hear an appeal of a ruling that forced a proposed cigarette tax increase back on the Nov. 7 ballot.

more at--


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/15578187.htm