Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoes SB 3 - the republican sponsored vote supression bill

by: Michael Bersin

Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 15:15:19 PM CDT

[....]

June 17, 2011

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herwith I return to you House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal section 115.427, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to elections, with contingent effective date.

I disapprove of House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Pending approval of a constitutional amendment, House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 would require a government-issued photo identification to vote. This new mandate would disproportionately impact senior citizen 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. Disenfranchising certain classes of persons is not acceptable.

House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 imposes unnecessary burdens on senior citizens and persons with disabilities, for example, who do not have a government-issued photo ID, with no guarantee that, in the end, their vote will count. House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 first requires them to execute a legally-binding affidavit explaining why they lack a government-issued photo ID. After executing the affidavit, the senior citizen, person with a disability and anyone else who lacks a government-issued photo ID for the reason identified in the affidavit is not permitted to cast a regular ballot and is instead given a provisional ballot. Even after meeting these requirements mandated by House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3, their vote would not be counted unless the election authority compares their signature on the affidavit with their signature on file - a signature that may bear little resemblance to their current signature because it was written decades before - and determines that the two signatures match. Placing a cloud of uncertainty over ballots cast by qualified voters is inconsistent with an individual's right to vote and have that vote counted. In addition, for those citizens wanting to avoid the uncertainty of a provisional ballot, House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 would require them to navigate a costly and time-consuming process to obtain a government-issued photo ID. House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 does not meet my approval, because it is unacceptable to impede or discourage citizens from voting who have lawfully cast ballots their entire adult lives.

In accordance with the reasons for disapproval stated above, I am returning House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 3 with my approval.

Respectfully submitted,
s/
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon
Governor

"...imposes unnecessary burdens on senior citizens and persons with disabilities, for example, who do not have a government-issued photo ID, with no guarantee that, in the end, their vote will count..."

Ah, yes, the provisional ballot.

"...first requires them to execute a legally-binding affidavit explaining why they lack a government-issued photo ID..."

Right, that should go over really well with the black helicopter crowd. You know, the republican base. What were they thinking?

"...their vote would not be counted unless the election authority compares their signature on the affidavit with their signature on file - a signature that may bear little resemblance to their current signature because it was written decades before - and determines that the two signatures match..."

Because we all know that county election authorities across the State of Missouri are handwriting experts.

Representative Denny Hoskins (r): supporting gaming, veterans, or higher ed? Bingo!

by: Michael Bersin

Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 18:39:16 PM CDT

...House Committee Substitute for House Bill Nos. 620 & 671 will reduce proceeds to the Bingo Proceeds for Education Fund by approximately $2.2 million annually. This reduction in education funding will have significant negative fiscal impact on the Missouri Schools for the Deaf, Blind, and severely Disabled.

In addition, the fiscal year 2010 budget appropriates $300,000 from the Bingo Proceeds for education Fund to the University of Missouri for planning and design of a new Nursing and Optometry School on the campus of the University of Missouri-St. Louis and $300,000 to the University of Missouri for planning and design for a new Nursing/Health Professions School on the campus of the University of Missouri-Columbia.

In light of current fiscal conditions, this reduction to education funding cannot be absorbed.

In addition, House Committee Substitute for House Bill Nos. 620 & 671 authorizes the use of "electronic bingo card monitoring devices." The bill fails to define this term, an ambiguity which could lead to uncertain future interpretation. The lack of a specific definition could lead to a significant expansion of gaming activities in the state...

There's a certain irony that the House member bestowed with the bogus "Freshman Legislator of the Year for Higher Education" award by his republican colleagues (they hand out these fake awards like candy on Halloween) doing his darnedest to cut funding for higher education.

But, there's more. Representative Hoskins was so upset that he immediately issued a press release, complete with quotes. I wonder if he had 'em all lined up and ready to go? Just asking. The press release:

Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed motorcycle helmet repeal

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 16:46:16 PM CDT

...I disapprove of Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 202. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 202 repeals Missouri's 42 year old helmet law for any motorcyclists of passengers 21 years of age or older, except on interstate highways.

Head injuries are the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. Without a helmet, a motorcyclist is 40 percent more likely to suffer a fatal head injury than a helmeted motorcyclist in a crash. [Traffic Safety Facts, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, January 2008].

It is estimated that from 1984 through 2006, helmets saved the lives of 19,230 motorcyclists and 13,320 additional lives would have been saved had helmets been worn by operators or passengers.  [Traffic Safety Facts, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, January 2008].

In addition to safety issues, weakening or eliminating helmet laws causes a dramatic spike in the cost of treating patients who suffer injuries in motorcycle accidents. The State of Florida saw a 40 percent increase in the number of motorcyclists admitted to hospitals in the 30 months following repeal of its helmet law in 2002, with the cost for treatment more than doubling to $44 million.  [Traffic Safety Facts, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, January 2008]. According to one study, it was estimated that the total cost to treat motorcycle accident victims who were not wearing a helmet is $250,231,734 a year more than the cost of treating victims who were wearing a helmet. [Economic Impact of Motorcycle Helmets: From Impact to Discharge, Journal of trauma-Injury, Infection & Critical Care, 2006]

Ultimately the taxpayers must pay a significant portion of these increased costs. After Florida repealed its helmet law, 16 percent of injured motorcyclists admitted for hospital treatment were either under-insured or uninsured and the costs for another 21 percent were billed to either charitable or public sources, such as Medicaid. [Traffic Safety Facts, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, January 2008].

In accordance with the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 202 without my Approval...

The news release from the governor's office: Gov. Nixon vetoes bill to repeal Missouri helmet law; cites increased health care costs to taxpayers, public safety as primary concerns

Superpork

by: hotflash

Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:18:53 AM CST

Bush has vetoed only his fifth bill since he took office in 2000, and finally Congress looks set to override him.  The House voted for override on Tuesday 361-54.  It would be reassuring that the Democrats and Republicans have finally found common ground on which to oppose the president if they were united for something like stem cell research, slowing global warming, or getting us out of Iraq. 

Instead, they're going to override a veto of a $23 billion authorization for future water projects for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  Although the bill includes some worthwhile projects, such as the $1.9 billion to restore coastal ecosystems, most of the 23 big ones are only a way to buy votes back home, otherwise known as pork.

Jon Stewart on Bush's SCHIP Veto

by: hotflash

Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 15:16:08 PM CDT