« How To Soft-Sell A Terrorist Takeover | Main | Back To Normal At The Boston Globe »


A proposed ammendment in Missouri, would require people to prove citizenship before being allowed to vote.

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote. The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.

Sponsors of the amendment -- which requires the approval of voters to go into effect, possibly in an August referendum -- say it is part of an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from affecting the political process. Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship.

Voting experts say the Missouri amendment represents the next logical step for those who have supported stronger voter ID requirements and the next battleground in how elections are conducted. Similar measures requiring proof of citizenship are being considered in at least 19 state legislatures. Bills in Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma and South Carolina have strong support. But only in Missouri does the requirement have a chance of taking effect before the presidential election.

In light of the crackdowns on illegal immigrants that are happening with increasing frequency, it would only seem logical few of these people would make an attempt to vote. As James Joyner at OTB noted- "Certainly, illegal aliens have strong incentives to avoid official scrutiny."

I guess the ammendment would prevent attempts at double voting. This being done through the use of dead people, or family pets being registered to vote. I assure Wizbang readers that neither Misay or Eponine Jempty have ever voted or ever will. See for the most part, I'm a well behaved registered Democrat.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (5)

"See for the most part, I'm... (Below threshold)

"See for the most part, I'm a well behaved registered Democrat."

At least you have McCain.

I always doubt the claims t... (Below threshold)

I always doubt the claims that proving citizenship to vote will disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters (or thousands, or hundreds etc). The vast majority of people born in this country can get proof. Naturalized citizens can get proof etc.

My father was born in 1935 in rural vermont and just recently the county he was born in was able to send him a copy of his birth certificate, from 1935. He needed it for a passport. If Dad can get proof from a state without 100% automation, then anybody should reasonably be able to get proof.

"Critics say the measure co... (Below threshold)

"Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship"

What have they been using to cash their monthly govt. checks?

I consider myself to be a "... (Below threshold)

I consider myself to be a "liberal", and I support this type of legislation. I barely escaped work in time to vote in the California gubenatorial election ten minutes before the polls closed only to find that "I" had already voted at my polling place.

I did get to vote in that election after confirming that I had NOT yet voted and sorting all that out. However, every vote that is illegally cast (in whatever manner) disenfranchises a valid legal voter.

I think every vote should count and each time an illegal immigrant, a convict, or a dead person vote in an election, a citizen who has cast a legal vote has just been disenfranchised.

I work in the welfare busin... (Below threshold)

I work in the welfare business. Motor Voter requires us to offer voting registration forms to ALL applicants for welfare, and once a year after they are on aid. Even when we know that someone is illegally in the US, we are required to offer the form. Even if someone is a legal resident but not a citizen, we are required to offer the form. If they fill it out, we are REQUIRED to send it to the registrar of voters.

Because of abuse like this,I am in favor of this type of law. I would, however, have no problem with exemption people over 70 from proof of citizenship for 10 years or so. By 2018, there will simply be NO excuse for a person not having a birth certificate. Anyone born after WW2 has a BC or they are not who they say they are.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy