MO Dem Governor Nixon Vetoes Voter ID Bill

Pro-fraud Missouri Governor Jay Nixon wants everyone to vote. Felons, dead people, two-times, three-times… Let them all vote. The true democrat understands that if you require Missourians to show an ID to vote that democrats may lose even more seats in Missouri. No good democrat will tolerate that.

The democrat governor vetoed the voter ID bill today.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:

Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a bill Friday that could have eventually required voters to provide a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot.

In the closing days of the legislative session, lawmakers passed an amendment to the state’s constitution mandating a photo ID to vote and a bill putting the amendment into practice. Voters will have the final say next year on the amendment, but by vetoing the implementation bill Nixon has prevented the law from going into effect even if it is approved by voters.

“This [photo ID] mandate would disproportionately impact senior citizens and persons with disabilities, among others, who are qualified to vote and have been lawfully voting since becoming eligible to do so, but are less likely to have a driver’s license or government-issued photo ID,” Nixon said in a letter explaining his veto. “Disenfranchising certain classes of persons is not acceptable.”

The bill included a mandate that the state cover the cost of obtaining a photo ID for those who are unable to do so.

#1 June 18, 2011 at 12:09 am
Alana commented:

This isn’t even real anymore. This is just so totally different from what I learned and expected when I was growing up.

I would never have predicted that the day would come when asking for ID at voting places would be considered somehow wrong.

It’s just crazy.
#2 June 18, 2011 at 12:29 am
kato commented:

When does the Clueless Party start taking a stand against parasites stealing elections?
#3 June 18, 2011 at 1:47 am
lynched1 commented:

How is it that a person can make it to vote every two years but in the remaining 700 days between cycles they can’t manage to accquire photo ID. I call BS!
#4 June 18, 2011 at 1:58 am
Guest commented:

Wait, why shouldn’t felons be allowed to vote?
#5 June 18, 2011 at 2:03 am
nobama2012 commented:

How do people fly on planes or cash those welfare checks with no id? They don’t obviously. Nixon is just lying to allow more voter fraud in Missouri.
#6 June 18, 2011 at 3:42 am
Molon Lobe commented:

Strange I am asked for photo ID all the time. Who would not have such an ID?
#7 June 18, 2011 at 4:51 am
Granny commented:

Baloney! You have to have a government issued ID card to apply for Social Security, fly or cash a check for heaven’s sake.
#8 June 18, 2011 at 5:57 am
RedBeard commented:

Translation: “I’m a liberal governor in a fairly conservative state, so I need all the illegal alien votes I can get in order to hang on to my cushy phony-baloney job.”
#9 June 18, 2011 at 6:56 am
Daniel commented:

MO residents should check to see their requirements for the state legislature to pass amendments to their state constitution.
In Maryland, it takes 2/3 votes in both houses to pass such an amendment.
It doesn’t go to the Governor for signature.
It becomes part of the state constitution and therefore, legally binding.

So, this way, you could bypass the Governor. Provided, of course, you’d have such majority votes in the legislature.
#10 June 18, 2011 at 7:05 am
Joe Blow commented:

Why would a democratic politician want to stop the people who vote for their party? The questionable voters might lose some of their freebies if they can’t vote for the group that makes them dependent upon the Democrat Party. Remember, in STL dead people vote at every big election. In other areas more people are allowed to vote than are registered to vote. Guess which party they vote for… I know for a fact that votes are found in prisons where certain incarcerated prisoners are being registered to vote and then do vote, it happened in the 2008 presidential election (a family member registered and voted for the first time in his life in the Jackson County Jail) and guess who he voted for….Change of course!
#11 June 18, 2011 at 7:42 am
NeoKong commented:

“This [photo ID] mandate would disproportionately impact senior citizens and persons with disabilities, among others, who are qualified to vote and have been lawfully voting since becoming eligible to do so, but are less likely to have a driver’s license or government-issued photo ID,”

In other words how would they steal all the votes from the nursing homes if all the patients who do not even know what day it is couldn’t vote?
Most elderly people who do not have an ID are usually in the care of someone else and can’t even operate the microwave but Gov. Nixon wants to round them up and squeeze out their vote anyways.
Disgusting.
#12 June 18, 2011 at 7:52 am
#1AMERICAN commented:

I say the voters in MO need to veto his A$$ right out of office…remember people voting has consequences
#13 June 18, 2011 at 8:45 am
Lightwave commented:

I especially love the argument “But you can’t point to a single case of fraud where this voter ID law would have prevented it!”

There are plenty of cases of other types of voter fraud, however. Dems do it all the time. So yes, the point of the bill is to discourage Dems from cheating.
#14 June 18, 2011 at 9:37 am
mg4us commented:

I hope the MO legislature can over-turn a veto with enough votes. .sick. .ID required for flying, buying booze but not voting!!!

Welcome to DemocRATS and Obama-nation!

time to take our country back and vote these jerks and usurpers out of office. .forever!!
#15 June 18, 2011 at 9:41 am
Ginger commented:

Do you want to express your opinion to the demo-rat Missouri governor for vetoing the voter ID Bill? Be polite…I did!

Correct me if I am wrong but I heard he is retireing.

http://governor.mo.gov/
#16 June 18, 2011 at 11:05 am
paul52 commented:

The Dims here in Wisconsin fought voter ID, but our Republican gov. signed it. Dims claimed there was NO voter fraud in WI until recall petitions came along… then fraud was rampant. Utter hypocrites.
#17 June 18, 2011 at 11:09 am
Valerie commented:

At one time, photographs were more difficult, and more expensive, to obtain. Things have changed, and getting a photo i.d. is just not that difficult, any more.
#18 June 18, 2011 at 11:14 am
tommy mc donnell commented:

“this would disproportionately impact senior citizens and persons with disabilities.” what a lie! to sign up for social security you need to provide your life story, or they could use that useless medicare card. how does the media continue to allow the politicans lie like this.

the illegal vote is becoming the mainstay of the democratic party political machine.
#19 June 18, 2011 at 11:27 am
Valerie commented:

“#16 June 18, 2011 at 11:05 am
paul52 commented:”

I’ve voted in Texas, Illinois, and Maryland, none of which required photo id. What they did require was voter registration and something like a utility bill addressed to me in the name on the registration. Although there have always been stories and jokes, I never thought all that much about it until 1) a Democratic legislature for Maryland spent 900K, over and against the advice of their technical consultant, to get rid of a clean, verifiable voting system that had survived audit beautifully and replace it with the touch-screen, scam-vulnerable system, and 2) the PUMAs caught the weird Democrats cheating in the Texas caucuses and primaries.

There is no reason for us to fail to use new technologies to help us ensure that our elections are clean and honest. Further, it has been demonstrated that our system is being abused.

It is not “progressive” to preserve correctable flaws in our electoral system.
#20 June 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm
GrandmaC commented:

The best hope for America – “TrueTheVote” now in Texas coming to your town soon.
#21 June 18, 2011 at 12:05 pm
man_in_tx commented:

I love Liberal logic. Has ANYONE EVER heard of a liberal Dem politician RAILING against Little League requiring ID for little kids to sign up? Notice how the Governor carefully tailored his remarks to focus on the “elderly” — i.e., those who don’t play “little league.” However, as someone above pointed out, ID is required to get connected on Social Security, and I do not recall Liberal Dems railing against that, either. It is is singularly the voting booth that riles up the Liberal Dems whenever the requirement to show ID is brought up. Obviously, they want to let more people vote than are eligible to do so. At what point do we begin to call the obvious and public subversion of our Constitution by the likes of Jay Nixon et al for what it is — “treason?”
#22 June 18, 2011 at 12:19 pm
chuck in st paul commented:

State after state is putting this off until after they steal the 2012 election. I guess they feel once they’ve snatched power back into their greedy hands they can dump this in the memory hole.
#23 June 18, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Slick commented:

Vetoing a bill designed to prevent voter fraud by requiring LESS than it takes to rent a hotel room PROVES that Democrats DEPEND on voter fraud to win elections.
#24 June 18, 2011 at 4:55 pm
SSBN 627(B) commented:

Every man and woman above 24 years if age, married and unmarried, has the right to vote, with the following exceptions: soldiers, minors (that is, those who for some reasons have been put under guardianship although they are 24 years of age), those who, for other reasons than poverty, have not paid their taxes to the government the last two years, those who have not the last three years been registered as Finnish subjects, those who are inmates of workhouses or get aid from the Poor Law Guardian funds, those who have been committed to prison for crimes or for vagrancy, those who are in bankruptcy, who are condemned for a certain time “to be without the confidence of their fellow-citizens,” and finally, those who have behaved dishonestly in the elections. All who have the right to vote are also eligible to the Diet.

Finland 1906, first nation to grant universal suffrage. Notice the requirements: old enough to understand how the world works, not dependent upon the State or Mommy & Daddy, gainfully employed, not a known voter fraud. I would, of course, disagree vociferously with the Army exclusion and am unsure regarding the ‘confidence’ clause.

I really REALLY like the welfare clause!
#25 June 18, 2011 at 6:54 pm
usamopatriot commented:

Nixon knows he’s toast in the next election. He’s a drowning man grasping at straws.
#26 June 19, 2011 at 1:35 am
Ready to fight back! commented:

Wishful thinking Ginger, he isn’t about to retire, but we can sure vote him out of office.