Nixon faces veto choice on Mo. voting laws

DAVID A. LIEB, Associated Press

Monday, June 13, 2011

As a candidate, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon denounced a proposed photo identification requirement for voters as an “onerous requirement.”

Now that he is governor, Nixon will have to decide whether to follow through with his earlier convictions and veto legislation that would implement a photo identification requirement. The catch is that the measure is paired with a provision allowing an early voting period before elections — a proposal that Nixon supports.

The politically sticky situation for Nixon is the result of some maneuvering by Republican legislative leaders who for years have sought to implement a photo ID requirement for voters but had resisted efforts to allow a period during which people can cast ballots — with no absentee excuse needed — before the official election day.

This year, lawmakers passed a pair of measures on the subject. They referred a proposed constitutional amendment to the 2012 ballot that, if approved by voters, would authorize both a photo ID mandate and an early voting period. They also passed a bill, which is pending before Nixon, to place specific details on both prongs of the voting law changes into state statute.

Although Nixon can’t affect the proposed constitutional amendment, he could veto the corresponding legislation — effectively preventing the law from taking effect if voters chose to amend the state constitution.

Nixon declined to say Friday whether he will sign or veto the legislation. But he has indicated in the past that he doesn’t like a photo ID requirement for voters.

While a candidate for governor in May 2008, Nixon told The Associated Press that he considered a proposed photo ID mandate to be an “onerous requirement” that would make it harder for Missourians to vote. He also issued a written statement at the time saying that “as elected leaders, we should work to increase voting and participation in the democratic process, not create new unnecessary roadblocks.”

Asked Friday if he still stands by this campaign comments, Nixon replied: “I said what I said. Obviously, we’re always trying to work to make voting as easy and efficient for people as possible. It’s an important part of democracy.”

Nixon did reiterate his support for the early voting period.

Although Missouri governors can use a line-item veto on budget bills, they do not have the authority to veto only part of a regular piece of legislation. That means Nixon must either accept both the early voting and voter ID provisions, or reject them both.

State Rep. Sara Lampe, of Springfield, is among many of Nixon’s fellow Democrats who would prefer he spike the legislation.

“”I think the voter ID is just too big of a problem to let early voting win out,” Lampe said.

Democrats contend that requiring government-issued photo identification could discourage or prevent some people from voting.

A 2006 law that required voters to show a government-issued photo ID was struck down by the state Supreme Court as an infringement on the fundamental right to vote that is contained in the state constitution. The court particularly took issue with the cost of obtaining documents — such as a birth certificate or passport — needed to obtain a free state photo ID card.

Yet Republicans contend a photo ID requirement only makes sense, noting that some hotels, package shippers and other businesses already ask to see photo IDs from customers. The 2011 version of the measure is intended to get around the court’s concerns by amending the constitution to specifically allow a photo ID requirement.

But the photo ID mandate may still have difficulty getting around Nixon’s concerns. The governor said the bill will be brought up for review by his office soon.

“The basic philosophy is it should be easier for people to vote,” Nixon said.

EDITOR’S NOTE — David A. Lieb has covered government and politics for The Associated Press since 1995.

More like this story

wow 1 year, 11 months ago

When people drive to the poles they are already carrying valid ID...it's called a Driver's License. In fact many of them are carrying other forms of valid ID. Military ID Cards, Student ID Cards, etc, etc. Some, although not very likely, may have their Pass Ports with them. Thing is most if not all people have valid ID with them all the time. So why the need for a special voter ID Card?

Has anyone been to the voting poles and actually seen someone ushered away from a voting station for trying to vote illegally? Honestly, I have not seen it ever! When was the last time someone showed up to vote and presented a false ID? When was the last time someone showed up at the poles and tried to vote illegally? I know there are a few absentee ballots from fictitious or dead people sent in, but these are absentee ballots and these voters are/would not be required to show the new voter ID, which means in absentee voting cases. The special voter ID would be useless in detecting "voter fraud". So again, why the need for the special ID?

IMHO, the special ID isn't needed. State governments already issue valid acceptable ID to citizens...there isn't a need to create a "special voter ID". This is a ploy to influence voter participation and touches on some serious issues and here's why.

This voter ID requirement is directed at the two groups of Americans that have been energized to change the American power base. These two groups are the older generation and the young college age voters. Both groups are important because the older group is fed up with the BS and want to see things change before they pass on. The younger group doesn't want to go through the same BS they watched their elders go through. Both groups know the best way to make that change is by exercising their right to vote! Yet the designers of this ancient ploy are counting on disrupting things.

The designers are purposely placing the extra burden on getting this new ID and by design want it to be an obstacle that makes enough people in the older group to give up and enough people in the younger group to say... we can't win. It's not like this type of ploy has not worked before.....black codes, pole taxes, special voting test's and it wasn't until the 1960's that all people were allowed to vote in America. Control the ballot and you control the vote, control the vote and you control the way things happen. It's nothing new.

Only legally registered voter's should be allowed to cast their vote and have it counted. But when a person comes to register to vote or actually vote, they simply should be asked to provide one of the many currently acceptable forms of valid ID that are already being used....nothing more nothing less. As for the absentee frauds...keep catching them, but the special ID won't be able to help and is therefore useless.

JCLifer 1 year, 11 months ago

Absolutely nothing wrong or nothing discriminatory about requiring a photo ID at the polling place. This will help cut down on all the dead people voting and people voting multiple times under other's names.

Should have been done years ago.

Anyone who thinks this is discriminatory must also be admitting that certain groups are voting dead people or voting multiple times. Otherwords, if you whine you are guilty.

Rison 1 year, 11 months ago

Ditto

tonto 1 year, 11 months ago

OK, but let's talk about what happens in the real world. The photo ID requirement is a bad joke, because those dead person votes (for one party) are not the result of someone coming into the polling place and giving a fake name. They are put into the system by corrupt election officials. Fictional absentee votes (for the other party) are put into the system by corrupt election officials from that party. We aren't going to change any of that by having a silly photo ID requirement.

tonto 1 year, 11 months ago

You are right about the poll watchers. At least in Missouri and several other states I am familiar with there are matched pairs of poll watchers from the two major parties. They have probably worked together previously. In smaller precincts they actually know who is supposed to be voting and will challenge anyone they don't know or who should not vote, regardless of any phoney-baloney voter ID law.

Now - please step back and think about what really happens. Vote fraud is not committed by roving crews hauled from polling place to polling place with multiple dead peoples' names. That would be too much work for too little results. Successful fraud is done by altering the voting machines and the vote tallies, and by "finding" boxes full of absentee ballots after the polls close but before the count is released. It becomes obvious when exit polling differs a lot from the official vote.

asb 1 year, 11 months ago

It is discriminatory in that it is one more process that everybody has to go through, which is more difficult for the elderly, undereducated and poor, a more Democrat population. Do we need the expense? No. It's not a huge hoop, but you libertarians gripe about the additive nature of hoops and this is a hoop. It could swing an urban election by percentage points and that, by any definition, is discriminatory. If it's so logical and a bi-partisan hedge against voter fraud, why is it usually promoted by the right rather than the left?

JCLifer 1 year, 11 months ago

Its not discriminatory because it would affect EVERYBODY EQUALLY.
Are you trying to say that elderly, undereducated and the poor do not have photo IDs? (that would be a very condescending and insulting opinion, I would think.)

asb 1 year, 11 months ago

As a left winger I am now as bad for America as Osama Bin Laden, the murderer of innocents by the score? You spoke too quickly there Grace. You are disgusting and frightened. Your twitch signs your hateful nature. I reject your comparison of the "left," a near majority of Americans, to murderous terrorists. You are not usually a troll, shame!

fishbowl72 1 year, 11 months ago

I feel the need to correct you on one point. The left doesn't hate opposing points of view, rather they embrace them as a chance to distort that point of view.

asb 1 year, 11 months ago

So you really are saying that people on the left want to destroy America. . . not just some extreme revolutionaries but "the left." That is grotesque. Traditional Americans? What are these?

wow 1 year, 11 months ago

How many people have shown up at the poles to vote in Missouri with fake ID's? How many people in Missouri have done this and then tried to vote or were able to vote? This next one is gonna really kill ya. News flash this is Missouri....not DC, Philly, Boston, NY, LA, Seattle, Chi-Town, Denver, Vegas, or some highly populated technically advanced state. I mean no disrespect to anyone...however this is Missouri....and in Missouri you either travel by car, truck, motorcycle, horse, horse and buggy or you walk. Only a very small population uses the city bus and even fewer use the train or cab to get around the state. Geez....my comment about most voters carrying a legit ID/Missouri Drivers License is right on point. My limited view on how people live...are you kidding me? Missourians who don't live in STL, KC, almost don't have modern technology. Branson, Columbia, Joplin, Cape might be the exceptions; however many of the areas which surround these places are years behind the rest of the world. Don't believe me...visit Jamestown, Tebits, Waynewright, Portland, Linn, St Robert's, Waynesville, Rolla, Union, etc, etc, etc. Jcyalater....take two puff's and pass what ever it is you're smoking, cause this place ain't viewed as small time America for nothing. And there's no good reason to make Missourian's have a special Voter's ID. Forget the fact that Missouri isn't a thriving heavily populated state. Please tell me why a Military ID, Vet ID Card, Mo. Driver's License, or one of the various other state issued Mo. ID's isn't good enough use to register and then vote?

JCLifer 1 year, 11 months ago

Shame on the liberal left to try to make "poor little victims" out of certain races and minoritiy groups, and encourage dependence on the government because they are "too weak" to fend for themselves.

Your arguement is very condescending and insulting that minorities are too dumb to get photo ID or know how to present it. How dare you sit on your high horse and use your belittling statements to try to victimize these people.

fishbowl72 1 year, 11 months ago

How dare you point out the obvious to the liberals? They need victims to stay in control. The more victims they manufacture, the more control they have over all of us.

Bucky 1 year, 11 months ago

"Democrats contend that requiring government-issued photo identification could discourage or prevent some people from voting."

I would like to see some real data on this statement. I have heard it repeatably ever since this issue started coming up and have yet to see it proven. I would like a non-political survey regarding whether or not it would be a burden on the poor, the elderly, or any other citizen to obtain a photo id. If this is a problem for a small segment of the citizenry, say, less than 1%, then it would be reasonable to make some concession to that small segment, and require it for everyone else.

As the Democrats historically pull all kinds of shenanigans to prevent the military serving overseas (who all have ids!) from casting absentee ballots, it rings hollow for them to cry foul.

tonto 1 year, 11 months ago

That's really a two-sided question, and some actual numbers would cut through a lot of the baloney being thrown by both sides here.

JCLifer 1 year, 11 months ago

Dead people cannot get an ID. The left hates to lose all the dead voters.

tonto 1 year, 11 months ago

It would not bother the fictitious absentee voters at all, though.

JMarie 1 year, 11 months ago

"Yet Republicans contend a photo ID requirement only makes sense, noting that some hotels, package shippers and other businesses already ask to see photo IDs from customers." This comment amuses me. Is this to say that since Hotels, the UPS man and bars require ID then it should be required to vote. LOL Voting isn't a business it is our right, and not one to be taken lightly. For many of us this is a right that was won by brave and diligent souls before us....Yes many of us already have a gov issued ID, but what if it the addresses don't match? or You've had a name change and haven't received your new voter card yet? This does cause a hardship for many. For many people getting an ID isn't as simple as jumping in your vehicle and going a few miles and paying to get a new or updated ID, especially those in rural areas, elderly, disabled those on fixed income that may not readily have the money it costs for transportation and the cost of the card. I think it is naive and short sighted to believe that it is. And is voter fraud rampant in MO?

MommaR 1 year, 11 months ago

This isn't something that will take effect the day it is signed, there will be a period of time for everyone to get their ducks in row and I bet if you called either the democrat or republican committee in your county they would find somebody that would take you to get your id...where there is a will there is a way!

NoMoBigBro 1 year, 11 months ago

The beauty of it hkchas, is that you DO NOT have to rely on anyone to get you a ride, you can do it yourself...as a citizen.

JCLifer 1 year, 11 months ago

Then they can ride OATS, Handi-Wheels, a church friend, or call their local party office to get a free ride.

If they are as unambulatory as you say, then they probably do not vote either.

Be reasonable!

GlennBeckguy 1 year, 11 months ago

If you drive to the polls and get pulled over, what ID do you give the officer? Why couldn't you use that very ID to vote with? This argument about the elderly and poor getting to the polls isn't the question we should be asking. Why not use your voter ID card you get from the Clerks office to vote with? Why not just get the New Black Panther Party to stand guard of the polling doors to intimidate voters like they had out east. The democrats would love that! Better yet, why don't we just phone in our votes, I'll call from my casket and you can call from your's. I believe the Conservatives shouldn't even campaign this next election, they won't have to because Obama has given the election away when the backroom deals were made on Obamacare. He's toast in 2012 and he knows it. Good Riddance and Hello Mr. Paul! Maybe Mrs. Palin will run with him and finally get some Values and Common Sense in D.C.-

MommaR 1 year, 11 months ago

Where in any of this does it say you have to have a photo voter id???? I show my drivers license(not asked too) when I vote along with my voter id card...big deal If any one truly wants to vote getting an photo id won't be a big deal, they took the trouble to go register to vote and to go vote I don't see a problem.

NoMoBigBro 1 year, 11 months ago

I'm with MommaR on this one. I've read through the article twice and nowhere do I see the mention of a "special voter ID Card". All I gather is that it is saying you must show a photo ID. Liberals seem to always live up to the mantra of "never letting facts get in the way of a good story" and inserting "special voter ID Card" into the conversation seems to go right along those lines. Is it really that big of a problem obtaining a photo ID?? Maybe there is something in the bill about a special card that we don't know about, then that may be a different story. If there is, please enlighten us.

Someone said "Voting isn't a business it is our right, and not one to be taken lightly. For many of us this is a right that was won by brave and diligent souls before us". It's not to be taken lightly they say, but they are fine with scores of "dead" people voting, and people voting multiple times? No one else sees a problem with that thinking?

fishbowl72 1 year, 11 months ago

Voters should have to pass an IQ test and score over 100 just to EARN the right to vote. Fools tend to vote for fools, we can't afford any more of that.

JMarie 1 year, 11 months ago

Are the dead and those with multiple personalities voting in person? Or by absentee ballot? If later is the case wouldn't this new requirement be mute? Also if the law requires a special ID if I were able to generate the documentation to get a drivers licence or ID wouldn't i also have the ability to get one of these cards?

wow 1 year, 11 months ago

Wrong....if it was as simple as showing a valid ID there would be no problem. The issue is that in order for a person to register to vote and then vote in Missouri...a Missourian who is legally able to do both...would first need to apply for and be issued a"special Missouri voter's ID" before doing so. His/her US Military ID, US Veterans ID, Passport, Missouri Driver's License, or any other forms of currently used official Missouri ID would not be acceptable. This article may not clearly state that and ya know why...because that little secret is purposely hidden in all the fine print. If the people who support this bill were to clearly explain this bill, they know it would cause an even bigger uproar.

Now you tell me......why isn't a US Military ID, US Veterans ID, Passport, Missouri Driver's License, or any other form of currently used official Missouri ID acceptable ID? Why does a person have to have a special voter's ID? Does that make sense to you? The supporters of this bill forget to expound on that point.

Every form of ID I mentioned currently being used can get a person married, divorced, registered for college, entered into the military, permitted to travel outside of the nation, etc, etc, etc. Why can't one of those documents continue being used as a legal form of ID for legal Missouri to prove they are legally registered voters and therefore authorized to legally vote? I don't think people are PO'ed because they need to show a valid ID. The issues are the BS behind the special ID requirement and Missourian's being forced to have a special voter's ID. Like most people have said. I already have a valid ID and don't need a special voter's identification card...So I say HNTFURASVID and the same for the people who support this obvious political BS!!!!

NoMoBigBro 1 year, 11 months ago

Well then, if in fact there is a provision in the actual writing within the bill that dictates that you must obtain the "special voter ID card", I'm with you.

I see no problem with showing any of the aforementioned photo IDs that you stated.

JCLifer 1 year, 11 months ago

There are a whole bunch of disabled people living in privately-owned group homes who do not drive, but every one of them has a non-driver photo ID issued by the state.

If they can get a photo ID, then why can't your people? You seem to have very low regard for the people you talk about. It is as if you want them to think they are powerless to do anything or to help themselves. Not everyone relies on the government to coddle them for every little thing.

3blindmice 1 year, 11 months ago

when I ride to the polls on my vanmoof I don't carry id other than my voting card. perhaps if I was cruising around in a terrorist funding 6 mile to the gallon SUV i would carry a drivers license but I am more genetically evolved than that

fishbowl72 1 year, 11 months ago

My goodness... how is everyone missing the boat on this one? We live in a society of handouts of all kinds to everyone under the sun. The ones demanding the handouts are the ones complaining about the ID cards. I wonder what card they will play next...

asb 1 year, 11 months ago

That is a fabrication. All social programs are stressed at present, as are most segments of the economy, but not broke. Adjustments to their funding, such as having the tax base shifted upward, are all that are needed to continue proper funding. The programs themselves also need constant scrutiny and oversight, but not like the Ryan hammer.

tonto 1 year, 11 months ago

Actually, the Social Security/Medicare system is a Ponzi Scheme by definition since benefits are paid from new contributions. Medicaid is not a Ponzi scheme since no one pays "earmarked " taxes to support the program.

asb 1 year, 11 months ago

The RIGHT to vote is given at birth. High-grade identification is required to aquire credentials. Actually voting has always required you to be identified by presinct workers and your signature. The government-required Voter ID card is another attempt by the government to control and examine your lif . . . oops, wrong rant . . . another attempt by conservatives to diminish to a measureable extent, the vote of the old, minority, infirm, and the poor. Fraud prevention is a function of the election process and can be countered even with VIDs. This is political manipulation by the right.

muleman 1 year, 11 months ago

Kinda like having to go to a state office and paying $15.00 for a birth certificate before you can renew drivers license. The one issued at birth wont work. Where is all this money going, $15.00 for every licensed driver in the state sure adds up

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID