By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, October 16, 2006 at 2:18 PM
BREAKING NEWS | READ IT HERE FIRST Labels: Breaking_News, Exclusive
The Missouri Supreme Court just issued its voter ID decision. In a 6-1 opinion, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court striking down the law. Only Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. (cousin to Rush Limbaugh) dissented.
Developing...
From the Court's decision:
"The Missouri Constitution provides a specific provision that enshrines the right to vote among certain enumerated constitutional rights of its citizens... SB 1014's Photo-ID Requirement creates a heavy burden on the right to vote and is not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest, so it falls afoul of the Missouri Constitution's equal protection clause... and of Missourians' specific constitutional protection of the right to vote... For these reasons, the trial court judgment is affirmed."
From Judge Limbaugh's dissenting opinion:
"Although the majority agrees that there is some evidence of voter fraud at the voter registration stage, they discount that evidence as if it had no connection with fraud at the polling place. But why else does voter registration fraud occur if not to vote persons fraudulently registered?"
"And if, as in the DOJ report, there are more voters registered to vote than persons eligible to vote, the requirement to present a photo ID will at least eliminate those who attempt to vote in the place of others and those who attempt to vote more than once."
"It must be said, too, that even if there were no substantial evidence of existing voter impersonation fraud, legislatures are permitted to respond to the potential for such fraud, and they may do so 'with foresight' rather than 'reactively'... In any event, as the Carter-Baker Commission recently concluded, 'there is no doubt that [in-person voter fraud] occurs' and that such fraud 'could offset the outcome of close elections.'"
Click here to read the both opinions in their entirety.
Related Video... At a recent neighborhood meeting in south St. Louis, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan predicted that the Supreme Court would uphold the lower court's ruling that the law was indeed Unconstitutional.
5 Comments:
This could be appealed to the Federal Court as the Federal Courts have a long history of dealing with voting rights. I doubt this will occur because the motivation for this Voter ID Bill was to decrease Democratic voter turn out. After the election occurs an appeal will probably no longer be a priority. Even if it is appealed to the Federal Court, I am confident that even the conservative court would view this bill incompatible with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
10/16/2006 3:18 PM
This is the final stop for this issue in Missouri. It is a STATE constitutional issue, not federal, so the MO Supremes are the last word. Next stop is back to the General Assembly when they reconvene AFTER the November elections.
10/16/2006 4:01 PM
Anonymous,
I believe you are correct with regard to the question of appeal.
With regard to what the general assembly could do, they'd probably have to vote to amend the MO Constitution. I can't conceive of any voter ID bill that would be MO Constitutional without a change in the MO Constitution itself.
Still, great news on such a dreary day!
10/16/2006 5:49 PM
^For now. The authoratarian mind can't abide being thwarted. They'll be back.
10/17/2006 9:48 AM
Back in June when young governor Matt signed SB 1014 into law, Trish Vincent, Director - Department of Revenue, estimated it would cost her department $2.9 million to ensure everyone could obtain photo IDs.
Now that the dust settled, I'm curious as to how much was really spent - and for what.
For someone quoted on Meet the Press by Tim Russert, I'd think this would be an easy question to resolve.
10/18/2006 9:53 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home