Letter to the Editor - Explains Position On Voter ID Requirement

To the editor,

In response to the recent article, “Ward 1 Voter Protests New Law ...”, and to my experiences at the polling place, let me begin by making a correction of my remark as quoted. I meant to say “to protest for my right to vote.” A small difference maybe, but like the legislation in question, words and their meanings are significant, especially as they pertain to our freedoms and rights.

Given the options presented and explained to me by the election officials, my choices were 1.) to support and validate an unjust law by complying and showing my photo ID, or 2.) to surrender my right to vote on that day. Each option (instead of showing my photo ID) required that I sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury (a felony) falsely stating that I did not possess an approved photo ID.

Since I told the election officials that I did possess a photo ID, had they allowed me to sign the affidavit (to which they were agreeable) they as well would have committed a voting fraud, knowing fully that my statement was false. I can only assume that many voters have opted for the affidavit, when they too possessed photo IDs, committing perjury and voter fraud. As well, those officials who sanctioned their signatures also committed fraud, exactly what the law was supposedly intended to prevent.

Ironically, when I read the entire House Bill 161 later that evening, I discovered that the election officials failed to completely explain my options, and that in fact, the law contains a loop hole that does allow those refusing to show photo ID and refusing to sign the affidavit can vote and have their vote count. Unexplained to me, I had a third choice.

The entire law, in all its complexities, may be viewed at:

http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=115.427&bid=33851&hl=.

The law states that, “Any individual who chooses not to execute the statement described in subdivision (1) of this subsection may cast a provisional ballot. Such provisional ballot shall be counted, provided that it meets the requirements of subsection 4 of this section.”

Further, per subsection 4. (1) “... or (b) The election authority verifies the identity of the individual by comparing that individual's signature to the signature on file with the election authority and determines that the individual was eligible to cast a ballot at the polling place where the ballot was cast; and The provisional ballot otherwise qualifies to be counted under section 115.430.”

In other words, the voter photo id law, for all its hoopla, intimidation, convoluted contingencies and affidavit misrepresentations is only a smoke screen. For, in the end, the essential means of voter identification is the same as it has been for nearly 200 years, as it was last year and as it appears it will continue to be, the citizen's signature.

Unfortunately, because the election officials and county clerk Debbie Door (our county's chief election official and with whom I spoke on the phone) were either not sufficiently familiar with the law and its procedures or they withheld important information, I did not cast my vote.

Voting is our principal, fundamental right, for without it, our democracy cannot even exist. If the legislators in Jefferson City are bent on correcting improprieties and abuse, they have only to look in the mirror. Intimidating some voters with pretentious and restrictive laws is meant only to disenfranchise them. In this case, me.

Terry Beckmeyer

New Haven MO