Is This How Republicans Plan to Win in November?

The State of Missouri, ever mindful and fearful of illegal immigrants, wants to make sure these illegal immigrants don’t show up at the polls in November and attempt to vote.

The interesting thing is that Missouri law already requires proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Somehow, the current law just isn’t enough for these Republicans. Fear rules in their world and fear is their only means of controlling others.

Excerpts are from the New York Times:

Supporters of the measures cite growing concerns that illegal immigrants will try to vote. They say proof of citizenship measures are an important way to improve the accuracy of registration rolls and the overall voter confidence in the process.

State Representative Stanley Cox, a Republican from Sedalia and the sponsor of the amendment, said that the Missouri Constitution already required voters to be citizens and that his amendment was simply meant to better enforce that requirement.

“The requirements we have right now are totally inadequate,” Mr. Cox said. “You can present a utility bill, and that doesn’t prove anything. I could sit here with my nice photocopier and create a thousand utility bills with different names on them.”

From October 2002 to September 2005, the Justice Department indicted 40 voters for registration fraud or illegal voting, 21 of whom were noncitizens, according to department records.

Wow – a whole 21 non-citizens. Now that is a frightening number especially since it happened within a 3 year span. What does that make it, 7 non-citizens/year?

The Missouri Supreme Court already ruled a photo identification law as unconstitutional so now the Missouri lawmakers believe it is time to change the Missouri State Constitution. What this change would do is disenfranchise some elderly who can’t get copies of their birth certificates.

Lillie Lewis, a voter who lives in St. Louis and spoke at a news conference last week organized to oppose the amendment, said she already had a difficult time trying to get a photo ID from the state, which asked her for a birth certificate. Ms. Lewis, who was born in Mississippi and said she was 78 years old, said officials of that state sent her a letter stating that they had no record of her birth.

“That’s downright wrong,” Ms. Lewis said. “I have voted in almost all of the presidential races going back I can’t remember how long, but if they tell me I need a passport or birth certificate that’ll be the end of that.”

A naturalized citizen that comes from a third world country may not have access to an original birth certificate and if they were a refugee, they might not even have a valid passport or their passport may have expired.

So the nuns that were turned away in Indiana may just be the tip of the iceberg. Guaranteed… there will be mores stories like these. After all, how else will Republicans win in November? They have a flip-flopping liar as their presidential nominee who is not inspiring to anyone and who would only bring a third Bush term which would perpetuate all the financial and economic disasters of the past 7 years.

For more on this story, click here

6 thoughts on “Is This How Republicans Plan to Win in November?

  1. Sorry, but there are other remedies that would let that 78 year old lady vote. Like her previous voting history, or a baptismal certificate, which her home state allows if there is a missing birth certificate.

    As to the low number of fraudulent voters in the recent past? There was no organized effort at that point in time. Just who is to say that there will not be one in the future?

    Naturalized citizens can vote, they just need to show their certificates of naturalization. That’s federal law, and states have to abide by it. We found that out here in Colorado when voting requirements were modified.

    As for McCain? I hope the convention ends up brokered. I will salute him for his past service, but I will never vote for that pandering fool with acute P.T.S.D.

  2. I believe the point is patrick is that they’re not using voting history as a credential. They’re making people who have been registered to vote for 50 years have a current photo ID to vote. If they proved their citizenship when they registered why require additional verification at the polling place? We shouldn’t be making voting more difficult we should be making it easier.

  3. Shayne, you are correct. The argument is that this 78 year old woman has a long history of voting and the Missouri legislators want to ignore this history and instead have her produce a birth certificate.

    The point about the low number of frauds was just that… there really is very little voter fraud. These same Republicans that are fearful of voter fraud don’t seem too concerned about the correct voter count. They don’t mention having paper trails of votes and mis-vote due to errors in the computer programs that count the votes. It’s only some illegal showing up to vote that gets their panties in a knot.

  4. As to the low number of fraudulent voters in the recent past? There was no organized effort at that point in time. Just who is to say that there will not be one in the future?

    I hope you’re not in favor of this ridiculous, unnecessary law. To my knowledge, the only effort under way to get voters to vote fraudulently is the one being conducted by Rush Limbaugh, and his “Operation: Chaos.” He has said, on many occasions, that the “goal” of “Operation: Chaos” is to disrupt the Democratic nominating process. He is trying to get Republicans (or conservatives) to switch sides and vote for Hillary Clinton (because they feel she is the easier candidate for Old John McCain to beat.) Rush has even said that his “dream” is to have riots in the streets, just like they did in Chicago, 1968.

    There is no valid reason or excuse for trying to amend their state constitution to prevent a problem they have no history of having. By their “logic”, it is better that ten legal voters be denied their right to vote, than that one fraudulent voter get through.

    The Republican Party has a history of trying to deny people the right to vote, rather than find ways for more people to exercise their right to vote. And they do this because when voter turnout is high, the Republicans tend to lose. And for them, winning is more important than what’s best for the country (which is, of course, Republicans not winning.)

  5. Yeah, let’s make laws for something that “could ” happen, but hasn’t. Nice logic. Isn’t that along the lines of Pre-eminent invasion? That worked out well, too, didn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s