Supreme Court decision of Voter ID law. Will Republicans in Missouri try again?

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Indiana Voter ID law recently. It is considered one of the strictest voter suppression law in the country. In 2006, a similar law was passed in the State of Missouri, but the Missouri Supreme in decision of Weinschenk et al. v. State of Missouri stated that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Missouri Constitution.

Essentially requiring some people, mostly elderly and the poor, to pay for birth certificates in order to get those IDs would have put a burden to their right of free suffrage. Now over the last few days, I've seen some Missouri Republican politician laud the U.S. Supreme Court and has embolden some to bring up the possibility of resurrecting the 2006 law in the model of Indiana. It is probably a little late to bring it up during this legislative session and I don't know if this is an issue that would be required to hold a special session later on.

It is time for Democrats and progressives to be prepared for the Republican distortion machine. To start off, in 2004 Matt Blunt, then Sec. of State declared the election fraud free. It is ironic in just 2 years all of a sudden a voter ID law becomes a legislative priority.

Another Republican tactic is they will tell you that there is dead people voting here in Missouri or voting twice. According to the Dept. of Justice, there was no proof of "impostor" fraud in the state of Missouri, meaning someone voting under a name other then their own. The Republicans have brought up 2 incidents in Missouri to justify their voter suppression law. One is the ACORN voter registration fraud in St Louis. What had happened is that someone(s) falsified voter registration forms in order receive more money since they were paid for each registration. However, no one voted using those false registrations (impostor voting), which was again the justification for the 2006 law.

The other incident that Republicans are bringing up a KC Star report about a Blue Springs man that voted in both Missouri and in Kansas. My response is that like the ACORN controversy, the Voter ID law in 2006 was to prevent "impostor voting" and it would of not prevented someone from crossing state lines to vote again.

Be ready folks, the voter suppressors will make this Supreme Court decision their rallying cry

Campaign Limits: Will the courts punish those municipal elections?

A lot of the press has been focused on how certain statewide and state legislators will possible have to return some of their campaign contributions. Again I will like to know if further rulings from the Missouri Supreme Court on this issue will take into account the municipal elections that already took place this spring? There are certain city council and school board elections that have run it's course and these campaigns do not have money in their accounts to refund excess contributions. I do agree that those political offices that are to be determined in 2008 should refund excess monies. The reason being is that not everyone has entered the races and technically have till the end of March to run. Those folks will not have the chance to solicit uncapped contributions and therefore those who started the fundraising during the unlimited fundraising period would have an unfair advantage. On the bright side, Matt Blunt will have to refund tons of money. On the not so bright side, Jay Nixon will have to pay back a good chuck of money as well.