Missouri Circuit Court Ruling Upheld--Photo IDs Unconstitutional!

[galloglas]

Mo. High Court Strikes Down Voter ID Law:woohoo:

By KELLY WIESE
The Associated Press
Monday, October 16, 2006; 3:38 PM

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Missouri Supreme Court struck down the state's new voter identification law Monday that would have required voters to show a photo ID card at the polls starting this fall.

A lower judge ruled last month that the ID requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on the fundamental right to vote. The state Supreme Court agreed in a 6-1 unsigned opinion.

The new law would have required voters to show a photo identification card issued by Missouri or the federal government before they could cast a ballot. Voters lacking the ID would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot this fall, but after that, only the elderly, disabled and those with religious objections could vote without one, and only by provisional ballot.

The court found the requirement violated several provisions in the state constitution. The justices said requiring otherwise legitimate voters to obtain an appropriate ID imposed too great of a burden on their voting rights.

Supporters of the ID requirement said it was necessary to prevent voter fraud and increase confidence in the election process.

Opponents argued the ID requirement would disenfranchise the poor, elderly and disabled who may be less likely to have a driver's license.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101600631.html

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Great news. Good to know some courts still can read the law.

[Mabus]

2. Whew! This is great news. K&R

I know at least one DU'er that is going to give a sigh of relief. This means her mom will be able to vote.

[BeFree]

3. There ought to be...

... a law that says when a legislature passes a law that is later ruled unconstitutional, those legislators who voted for it are declared enemies of the constitution and are waterboarded till they confess.

Nah, torture is too good.

Hey, either voting rights are serious business, or it ain't.

[EFerrari]

4. Good news!

:woohoo:

[freedomfries]

5. here's the Supreme Court ruling

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/ccd96539c3fb13ce8625661f004bc7da/cd66cf7b2479b16d86257209005f0e7a?OpenDocument

[galloglas]

6. Thanks for that post, Freedom Fires!

I wish (one can always wish) that the rules here at DU were different.

For two weeks we have had nitwits posting all of the GOP talking points in FAVORof why we should have Photo Voter IDS.

I wish the rules would force each and every one of them to read through the majority decision, which upholds the lower court's ruling.

It spells out beautifully the utter unfairness of the law, and how and why, and in how many ways, that SR 1014 was unconstitutional.

Guess you just have to have one of those black robes to be taken seriously, 'cause it was not like they weren't being told, at DU, WHY it was bad law!

Well, maybe they will read it now. Every Democrat in any Red State is going to run into this law (and, federally, with HR 4844), so they might as well ALL read this sucker right now.


So, thanks again for posting this.