By October 1, 2020, anyone wanting to fly domestically, or gain legal admittance to a government facility or a nuclear power plant needs to have a Real ID (or a valid U.S. passport). Your Real ID is a form of identification that meets standards set—in response to 9/11—by the federal government and set in stone by Congress in 2005. Some states jumped right in and created Real ID’s for their citizens. If you don’t live in Missouri, this is already old news, and you’ve had your Real ID for years. Not surprisingly, ultra-conservative and slow-as-molasses Missouri was among the last of the states to get on board (as I write this, the only remaining outliers are Oklahoma, Oregon and New Jersey).

I hate to admit this, but I’m not sure I completely disagree with Missouri’s recalcitrance. The requirements for getting your Real ID can be onerous for some people and inconvenient for a lot. Those are probably not the main reasons my state legislature dragged its feet—it’s probably more about “big-gummint” intrusion into little people’s lives, and as a “librul,” I’m less worried about that, given the greater good that a big-thinking government can do. What troubles me about Real ID is its basis in xenophobia and the burden it places on people with the fewest resources.

That being said, though, it’s the law. And now that the deadline is looming—the feds are done giving out multiple extensions like those it granted to Missouri several times over—it is becoming an emergency for Missouri citizens to do what’s needed to get the new card.

So, dutiful citizen that I am, and wanting to beat the last-minute crowds that will undoubtedly show up just before the deadline, last week, I did my research, gathered my docs, and headed over to my local DMV to get compliant.

The process was far from a slam-dunk. I was pretty sure I had the proper credentials—but as I waited in line at the DMV, I began to wonder. I had a long time to worry, because when I arrived, I pulled number 25 from the dispenser and then heard them call number 4. Each transaction was taking about 15 minutes. I did the math. It was going to be a long day.

But then, as I observed the official interactions from my chair (I was lucky to get one) three feet away, I began to see a trend: The clerk was turning away more than half of the applicants because they didn’t have a complete set of the required documents. That phenomenon made the line move more quickly—and I found myself guiltily cheering for more rejections—but it was disconcerting, too. With so many people being turned away, it was becoming clear to me (increasingly nervous about my own documents) that the requirements were confusing or not well-explained, or just impossible for some people.

I brought four items, but you might need five, if you don’t have a passport:

1. My current U.S. passport. That’s my proof of identity, because it has my full name and date of birth. (There are a bunch of other things you can bring for identity, but that’s the one I had. Birth certificates count, but mine wouldn’t have worked, because, as a woman who got married in the 1960s and changed my name, my birth name doesn’t match my current name, so it’s not valid ID. A friend of mine told me about an 86-year-old woman she knows who tried to use her birth certificate as ID but was rejected for just that reason and was told she needed something with her changed name, such as her marriage certificate. Unfortunately, all she had was her Jewish marriage certificate, known as a “ketubah.” That wouldn’t work, because it’s written in Hebrew.)

If you have a name problem, you can bring a “name change” document, such as a certified marriage license (in English), a certified divorce decree, certified adoption papers, or an amended birth certificate.

2. I needed something that certified that I am in the U.S. lawfully. My passport worked for that, too, but again, there are other valid documents for that purpose.
3. Social Security Card. (The rules say it can’t be laminated. I was glad I had never gotten around to doing that.) You can also bring a W-2 Form, a 1099 form, or a current pay stub that has your name and social security number.
4. Proof of residence x2: They want two of these. I brought my Missouri voter registration card (not the notification of where you vote) and a printout of my most recent bank statement, which has my mailing address on it. This is the category that tripped up most people who got bounced from the queue ahead of me. They didn’t have two. There’s a long list of things that work, you just have to remember to bring two of them.

The process was so slow that many people left before their number came up. Some took a new number as they exited, hoping to come back later and have an advantage in the sequence. That didn’t seem to work. The young man sitting next to me had tried it, after waiting for 90 minutes earlier that day. But when he came back, his number—89—had already been called, and he had to start over. He got 26 this time—he would be right after me—and we sat together for the next 90 minutes, chatting, secretly hoping for more people ahead of us to be rejected, and commiserating about the sad state of government administration as demonstrated by where we were at that moment.

Finally, they called, “25.” I did, indeed, have the correct documentation, and my transaction took only about 10 minutes, plus a $12 fee. The beleaguered clerk, who had taken quite a bit of shit from people lacking all the required docs, was very pleasant.  Unfortunately, I had made one major miscalculation. Real ID is good for six years, but my driver’s license expires in August of this year, which means so does the Real ID that I received in the mail 10 days later. I should have waited until March (or later), when I would have been within the six-month window for renewing my license. In my quest to get ahead of the game, I got too far ahead, and now I’ll have to go through the whole thing again this summer.

The post I got my Real ID last week in Missouri. Here’s what you can learn from my experience. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you were divorced in 1876 and were considering re-marriage next year, do you really think that voters in the state in which you live would be the proper authority to determine whether or not it is a good idea? Well, if you add the interests of a billionaire to the equation, this is precisely what you get, at least in Missouri.

But first, think about this issue from a bird’s-eye perspective. Suppose that two people had been married years ago and divorced not too long after that. Since that time, they have often had conversations about re-marrying, but it never got very far because one was far wealthier than the other and each of them owned their own fiefdoms and were not eager to share control.

But then, a group of people who are vaguely familiar with both of them decide that they have the power to decide whether or not they should get remarried. Many of these people had never met either of them, but once somebody decided to make it financially beneficial for them, they took it upon themselves to be the arbiters and would decide about a remarriage.

In the case of the proposed reunification of St. Louis City and County, Rex Sinquefield is a very interesting civic booster in and around Missouri.  He had 18 cleft palate operations before the age of 5 and spent much of his youth in a local Catholic orphanage. He is a real rags-to-riches story, becoming an “index-fund pioneer” and has had assets over a billion dollars since 1980.

One thing that he clearly remembers from his youth was his mother complaining about having to pay a 1% earnings tax in the city of St. Louis. He seems to have not lost one bit of his anger about this particular tax that has been very helpful in funding the cash-strapped city of St. Louis.

How did this get him into the divorce business? It’s because he is creative and as crafty as a chess-master, which he happens to be. Since 2010, he has looked for ways to allow St. Louis and Kansas City jettison the earnings tax. And just recently, he found a new way to try to make that happen. His strategy involves a remarriage of the city of St. Louis with its surrounding county, thus voiding their divorce that occurred in 1876.

Through a complicated set of maneuvers, the earnings tax would be abolished in St. Louis if the re-marriage occurs. It has to do with an obscure legality whereby the St. Louis City would become a different classification of city in Missouri should there be re-unification.

So, what exactly is Sinquefield trying to do? Well, he wants voters in Missouri to vote in November 2020 on an initiative to reunify the city and county. But, what makes this odd is that the decision would be entirely in the hands of the people of Missouri. So, 6.1 million people would be making a decision about something that would have direct impact on only the 1.3 million people living in the city of St. Louis and its surrounding county.

If the ballot initiative was modified so that rather than letting the voters of Missouri determine if there will be a re-marriage, instead it authorized the two courters to decide for themselves, then this would be an excellent idea. Yes, it would not be an arranged marriage; instead, each party would have his or her freedom of choice.

If it were not so deceitful, the idea would be tantalizing. Missouri, which historically has discriminated against its two major metropolitan areas, would have a chance to empower them. Ultimately, if government is going to work in the future, the states are going to have to fade away and newly constructed metropolitan and rural authorities will be able to shape their own futures. But that is not what this is about. Nice try, Rex. Let’s hope you don’t fool too many.

The post Even in Missouri, arranged marriages should be outlawed appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Ten days before the high-stakes 2018 midterm election in Missouri, Eric Fey, St Louis County’s director of elections, led a group of high-schoolers on a back-stage tour of election headquarters. Three months from now, he’ll be in the warehouse, overseeing the de-tangling and re-rolling of miles of orange extension cords used to power up the Nov. 6 election. The highs of making big-news elections work, and the lows of post-election mop-up are the bookends of a job that few voters understand.

Correction: Fey is actually co-director of St. Louis County’s Board of Elections, and that’s important to know. He’s a Democrat. The other co-director is Rick Stream, a Republican. In St. Louis County, we get two directors, because, by Missouri law, all election administration has to be bi-partisan. Every function requires a Republican and a Democrat: You need an R and a D to open the door to the tabulation room. You need an R and a D to approve every absentee ballot. You need an R and a D to check voters’ IDs at every polling place.

“The only thing you can do here by yourself is go to the bathroom,” says Fey. “Everything else requires a bi-partisan team.”

In the world of election administration in the US, that’s unusual. Across the US, 70 percent of election officials are, themselves, elected, and there’s no requirement for party balance—which can lead to doubt about independence and fairness. “The person counting the votes is, him or herself, on the ballot,” comments Fey. “That doesn’t happen anywhere else in the world.”

That’s just one of the intriguing tidbits Fey shared during the two-hour tour that took us into places most people never get to see: the areas where election workers process voter registration cards, verify signatures on petitions, respond to requests for absentee ballots, sort out mailed-in ballots, electronically count the votes, and service voting machines—among myriad other election-critical tasks.

During the tour, Fey reeled off some key statistics that offer insight into the scope of the St. Louis County election operation. Here’s an annotated rundown:

Polling places in St. Louis County: 411  [The largest election district in Missouri]

Registered voters in St. Louis County:  750,000

Active voters in St. Louis County:  650,000

Workers employed on Election Day:  3,500

The election board is constantly recruiting election day workers—begging, really. The hours are terrible—5 am to 7 pm or later, depending on how things go. The pay is lousy — $125, which covers a separate two-hour training session plus the 14+ hour day. And it’s all one shift.

Election Day payroll:  $600,000  [The largest line item in the election board’s budget]

Petition signatures verified in 2018:  approximately 400,000

The 2018 midterm ballot in St. Louis County includes 4 amendments to the Missouri constitution, 3 statewide propositions, one countywide proposition, and  7 amendments to the St. Louis County charter. It’s the longest ballot ever produced in Missouri history, Fey noted. [His office, though not responsible for the wording on the ballot, had to negotiate with various sponsoring groups to edit the propositions, because, as originally written, they wouldn’t all fit on one piece of 8 1/2 x 19″ paper, which is the largest size that can be read by optical scanners.]

For every petition initiative, county election workers had to review each signature—to verify that the signer was a registered voter in St. Louis County and the signature matched—within reason—their original voter registration.

Early voting days in Missouri:  0

Missouri is one of just 13 states that do not allow early voting, notes Fey. Ninety-percent of voters cast their ballots on Election Day, putting a lot of pressure on Fey’s operation all in a single, 14-hour day.

The only “early voting” option is to vote absentee, either by mail or in person at headquarters or at a satellite location, if the jurisdiction opts to have one.  You have to provide a reason for voting absentee. Disability, being an election worker, or being outside of the voting jurisdiction on Election Day are acceptable reasons, so many people just say they’re going to be out of town. They are not required to show proof. “Our rules make liars out of a lot of voters,” says Fey.

In the cavernous, bare-bones warehouse that looks spookily like a set from “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” Fey showed our tour the election-day equipment he manages, and explained the limitations of what he has to work with:

Touch-screen voting machines:  1,800

Optical-scanner voting machines:  500

St. Louis County uses touch-screen machines purchased in 2005, at a cost of $10 million. Fey noted that the technology is 20+ years old. The machines operate on the now-antique Windows XP, which is no longer supported. Replacing broken touch-screen machines is not possible, because a) they are no longer manufactured by the supplier, ES&S, and there is no additional inventory. Only about six companies make voting machines in the US, and they haven’t been interested in maintaining their older models as they roll out newer ones.  “It’s a racket,” says Fey; and b) You can’t fill in, incrementally, with newer machines, because they won’t work with Windows XP, which is also the operating system for the equipment that counts the votes.

Also, you can’t borrow replacement machines from other Missouri jurisdictions, because many don’t use this model: In Missouri, each county election board is its own fiefdom. There are no statewide standards for voting equipment, so each county decides, independently of others, which equipment to buy and from which vendor. [On the plus side, notes Fey, it could be argued that this decentralization of the voting process is a positive—a fortuitous defense against widespread tampering.]

A few years ago, Fey learned that the voting district in in Troy, MO experienced an equipment disaster, when the roof of their warehouse caved in in a rainstorm, soaking all of their ES & S voting machines. The district’s insurance policy covered the purchase of new equipment. Fey took in the salvageable machines and cannibalized them for spare parts.

“The dirty secret in election administration is that we hope for a crisis—but not here,” quips Fey. He further explains that the hanging-chad debacle in Florida, during the 2000 presidential election, created a national electoral nightmare—which, in turn, resulted in Congressional legislation and federal funding for more advanced voting equipment. Although Fey is constantly asking for money for better technology, the state legislature and the county council just won’t come up with the funds, citing other, more pressing priorities. As an aside, Fey notes that rural jurisdictions have found it easier to upgrade their equipment, because they need fewer machines, so the overall cost is less.

“Our only hope is that money falls from the sky again, as it did after 2000,” says Fey.

So, with all of this creaky equipment, how does Fey know that votes are being recorded properly?

“We conduct a Logic and Accuracy test,” he explains. “We ‘vote’ on every machine in the warehouse, before they are sent out to polling places. This mock ‘vote’ has a pre-determined pattern that we can check for accuracy. This Thursday—five days before the election—is test day.”

Electronic poll books:  1,200

These i-Pad type tablets recently replaced the cumbersome, paper tomes that contained the names, addresses and precincts of all registered voters in St. Louis County. Election workers had to paw through hundreds of pages to find each voter as they came in to the polling place. Electronic poll books are a good-news, advanced technology update for Fey’s domain that are streamlining voter check-in. But a recent court fight over voter ID forced Fey’s IT department to reprogram the electronic poll books to match the new ruling [details, if you’re interested, here.] “We’re reprogramming 10 days before the election,” says Fey. “It’s a nightmare.”

Metal transport cases for Election Days supplies:  400+

These institutional-gray, banged up cases—an average-sized person could fit inside — look like they’ve been around for 50 years. Election workers stock them with all the standard paper forms and ancillary equipment [chargers, extension cords, pencils, pens, signs, forms and even American flags] needed at every polling place. It takes six days to deliver all of them. It takes three months—as noted before—to untangle the extension cords, clean out leftover materials and trash, and restock them for the next cycle.

“If you’re wondering what the heck we all do after the election, this is a big part of it,” says Fey.

Another stop on our tour was the tabulation room, where the actual votes are counted. Fey says that 98 percent of ballots in the US are counted electronically—as is also the case in St. Louis County. While some voting-rights purists wish that ballots were counted by hand, so that they cannot be electronically hacked, Fey contends that hand-counting itself can be subject to cheating, too.

Fey assured us that his tabulation machines are tamper-resistant, because they are not networked together [they are “air-gapped”] and are not linked to the internet. Nor are the electronic voting machines at polling places linked to each other or to the internet. Each voting machine records its votes separately from all others and stores the votes on a separate storage device. Election supervisors deliver the storage devices—in addition to paper votes recorded on optical scanners—to the tabulation room, where they are catalogued and entered into the tabulation machines.  Results are posted to the internet using what Fey calls a “sneaker net.” Wearing his election day sneakers, he walks the tabulated results to another room, where they are posted to the internet for public viewing.

At the end of our tour, Fey invited the high-school students to participate in an innovative, election-day internship program: While you must be 18 to be an election official, students 16 and older can work at polling places, timing the vote and conducting exit surveys to assess voters’ experiences of the process. Interns can be paid either in community-service hours or in real dollars [$120].  Nearly half of the 25 students on the tour took application forms—an encouraging sign about the next generation of voters.

The big stress test for Fey’s operation will, of course, come on November 6. I came away with the impression that with Fey in charge—equipped with his attitude of openness, fairness, bi-partisanship and transparency—we’re in good hands around here. But I’ll still be staffing a shift outside a polling place, as an Election Protection volunteer.

The post Back-stage tour of election headquarters: numbers tell the story appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The continuing, confusing saga of voter ID requirements in Missouri continues. On Friday, October 19, at 5 pm, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that voters who do not show a photo ID–but who do show a “secondary” form of non-photo ID, should be allowed to vote a regular ballot, without having to sign an affidavit.

Bottom line: You can vote without photo ID in Missouri’s November 6 midterm election.

Unfortunately, this news comes too late for hundreds of people who have already been trained by county election boards to be pollworkers. [They’re the front-line workers who look at your ID and decide if you’re okay to vote.] Those who have already been trained have been told that voters lacking photo ID will have to sign an affidavit swearing, under penalty of law, that they are who they are and that they do not have a photo ID. Now, that whole procedure has been thrown out. But poll workers may not know about it, and confusion will undoubtedly ensue.

Further complicating the situation is a previous assertion, by Missouri’s Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, that poll workers can still enforce the affidavit rule.

Voting rights advocates are calling for Ashcroft and State Attorney General Josh Hawley to make it clear that election board employees and poll workers are required to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling. [You’d think that would be obvious. But in an era in which the rule of law is under siege, it’s not the slam-dunk that it once was.] There’s also been a suggestion that election boards simply do not send affidavits to polling places, so that there’s no opportunity to require voters to sign them.

It’s going to be a messy Election Day. People who are unjustifiably asked to sign affidavits or who are not allowed to vote can call the Election Protection hotline, 1-866-687-8683, which will be staffed by attorneys and law students trained in election law.

The post MO voter ID update: No need for affidavits appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Need a sample ballot? Many Missouri voters are worrying about the 2018 midterm ballot. We’ve been warned: It’s unusually long. It includes a slew of Constitutional amendments, propositions, County charter amendments, retention questions for state judges most of us have never heard of, and, of course, candidates for offices ranging from US Senator to local tax assessor.

We’ve been warned, too, that the length of this ballot could result in an average voting time of, perhaps, 20 minutes. The result could be long lines at polling places, as an unusually energized electorate turns out in larger-than-usual numbers.

So, in the interest of being better informed and getting through the process more efficiently, many voters are asking their elections boards, as well as voter advocacy groups like the League of Women Voters about getting sample ballots in advance.

The good news is: they’re available. The even better news is: They’re available in several ways.

Mass mailing from your election board

Your local election board –at least those in St. Louis City and St. Louis County—will be sending you a printed, sample ballot about a week to 10 days before the election, along with information about the location of your polling place.  However, while mailing out a sample ballot is a very nice, transparent, good-government way of informing voters, the printed version you’ll receive will most likely use very small type, because there is so much to include. It will include all local, state and federal candidates in your area. Also, the mailed-out version will include the ballot language of the issues, but there will be no explanation of what they are. [Because ballots can vary from precinct to precinct, resulting in many versions of the ballot, the election board will probably not be able to mail you an individual ballot. You have to wait for the mass mailing.]

Print a sample ballot from St. Louis County Election Board

Because the candidates and issues can vary from area to area, there’s no one-size-fits-all generic sample ballot. But you can get a customized sample ballot for St. Louis County by going to http://www.stlouisco.com, searching on “sample ballot,” and following the on-screen prompts. You’ll then see a sample ballot for your specific area. You can print it out–but be aware that, because of its length, printing on letter-sized paper will result in some very small print. Still useful, though.

Vote411.org

This very helpful website is a project of the League of Women Voters’ Education Fund. You enter your address, zip code, city and state, and it brings up all the electoral contests and ballot issues in your specific area. By clicking the + sign next to each issue, you’ll get a screen that gives not only the ballot language, but also a plain-English explanation, and a summary of what supporters and opponents say about each issue. You’ll also find a list of all the judges up for retention, accompanied by the rating each received from the Missouri Bar Association.

For each candidate and issue, you can indicate how you want to vote [it’s all confidential, of course. You never put in your name.] To get a sample ballot, click on the Finish button. The site will ask for your cell phone and email address, and it will then send you an on-line version of the ballot, complete with all candidates and issues. Very convenient!

Missouri Secretary of State website

Although it doesn’t get you a sample ballot, clicking on https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections will get you the official title and the Fair Ballot Language” of each of the statewide constitutional amendments and propositions that you’ll see on the Nov. 6 ballot.  Under Fair Ballot Language, you’ll see what each proposal would do, if passed.

Voters Guide in St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 26

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch —  in collaboration with the League of Women Voters — will include a comprehensive Voters Guide as a supplement in the [Friday] October 26 daily newspaper.  [They do this for every election, including primaries.] The guide will include all the information on the Vote411 website–but it won’t be customized for individual addresses. It covers St. Louis City, St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Franklin County and Jefferson County. You’ll be able to read all of the ballot language for all of the amendments and proposals, plus review all candidates for federal, state and local offices, including their statements about themselves and their positions on current issues. The guide also contains the names and “scores” for all judges up for retention. It’s a very useful tool. We should applaud the Post-Dispatch and the League of Women Voters for this huge undertaking–and we should be glad that we still have a daily newspaper in our region.

If you don’t subscribe to the daily edition, you can pick up a copy of the guide at your local library [the League of Women Voters has a volunteer corps that delivers bundles of them throughout the region]. Copies are also available at churches, synagogues and the offices of many non-profit organizations that request them.

Hint: Make yourself a “cheat sheet” to take to your polling place

It’s not cheating to take your own notes into the polling place. A so-called “cheat sheet” will help you remember what each proposition is about, and how you may have decided to vote when you had the time to review them in advance.

Note: I recently voted absentee in-person, and saw for myself the value of a cheat sheet. The electronic voting machines in St. Louis County include a review screen that appears after you have finished voting on the issues and candidates. That’s where you check to make sure that you voted the way you wanted to, and that the machine recorded your preferences correctly. But here’s the thing: On the ballot issues and amendments, the review screen does not state the issue associated with each amendment or proposition—so you might not remember what, for example, Proposition D was. That’s when a crib sheet listing the item and its topic comes in very handy. Here’s my crude version for St. Louis County.

Read, Google, Ask

Whatever you do, don’t get blind-sided by the ballot on Election Day. If you walk in prepared, you’ll congratulate yourself on being an informed voter. When you see the actual ballot—or scroll through the many screens—you’ll be glad you studied up. And the people in line behind you will thank you, too.

The post How do I get a sample ballot in Missouri? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Rock the Vote? Dance the Vote? How about Confuse the Vote? That’s the situation surrounding Voter ID in Missouri just three weeks before the November 2018 midterm election.

For many years prior to 2017, voter ID in Missouri was relatively straightforward and easy. To vote, you could present any of several different readily available forms of identification, including a Missouri driver’s license, a US passport, a student ID from a Missouri college or university, or something official that included your name and your current address—such as an electric, gas or water bill, or a bank statement, or the voter ID card issued by your local election board. Photo ID was not required.

Then along came photo voter ID mania—the innocent-sounding, voter-suppression gambit foisted upon us by Republican strategists, who disguised it as an anti-fraud measure, which would protect us against supposedly rampant voter impersonation schemes that never existed.

And this year, the voter ID scheme has gone off the rails. Do we need photo ID or don’t we? No one is sure—not even our illustrious Republican Secretary of State, John Ashcroft, Jr. [son of the former US Attorney General and former Missouri Governor John Ashcroft, Sr.].

What’s going on? In a series of warring lawsuits filed this year by voting-rights advocates and the Missouri Secretary of State, the voter ID requirement has come under fire, and has been declared—at various times—both valid and unconstitutional. As of this writing, a Missouri court has ruled that all previously accepted forms of voter ID must be accepted—but that decision is in limbo, because Ashcroft has filed an appeal in the Missouri Supreme Court for a stay of that ruling.

So, we are left with this: Election boards across Missouri don’t know what to tell their pollworkers about acceptable voter ID.

As it stands, according to a training session I attended last night, conducted by a local chapter of The Advancement Project, anyone presenting an appropriate picture ID will be allowed to vote using a regular ballot on November 6. People presenting “secondary” forms of ID—the ones with no photo—will be required to sign an affidavit stating, under penalty of law, that they are who they are—and will then receive a regular ballot. People lacking either the accepted form of photo voter ID or a secondary ID will be given a provisional ballot that will be evaluated later and either accepted or rejected. [Voting rights advocacy groups say that a high percentage of provisional ballots are not counted.]

If the Missouri Supreme court affirms the lower court ruling, the affidavit and the provisional ballot requirements are out. If it stays or overrules the lower court decision, the affidavit and provisional ballot requirements are in.

The net result is the aforementioned confusion. Pollworkers may be unsure about which forms of ID to accept. Election boards—each of which provide their own training to the workers, without a standardized, statewide protocol—may not have time to communicate the most up-to-date ID requirements to the thousands of pollworkers they’re deploying on Election Day. Pollworkers may then have differing perceptions about what’s acceptable, who has to sign an affidavit, who gets a regular ballot and who gets a provisional ballot. And unsuspecting voters may encounter bewildering instructions at their polling places—on an Election Day when the ballot is unusually long and confusing in itself.

Bottom line: Some voters, asked to sign an affidavit, may balk [possibly fearing the legal ramifications of signing an unfamiliar document] and go home without voting. Others may be turned away unfairly by pollworkers who are, themselves, confused about proper procedures.

Here’s what I think: The act of voting should be uncomplicated and routine, because everybody understands what’s required and how it’s done, and because it’s an activity that is organic and valued in a democracy. It shouldn’t be a high-drama situation, fraught with uncertainty. We should err on the side of allowing more people to vote, not fewer. Given the confusion around voting procedures for this election, I’m concerned that some people—even those who vote unimpeded—may begin to doubt the soundness of our voting system and the value of participating in it. And if you don’t trust the vote, what’s left in a democracy? Unfortunately, it appears that confusing the vote, as yet another way of suppressing turnout, is precisely what some people have in mind.

The post Confuse the Vote: Missouri’s cockamamie Voter ID Mess appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Missouri Senate race is tied and, in a scene so dramatic that it could be made into a film, we just so happen to have a nearly evenly divided Senate, with a Supreme Court vote less than 8 weeks from Election Day. This situation clearly has raised the stakes for a lot of Senators, especially those running in states that President Trump carried in 2016, like our own Sen. Claire McCaskill. I’ve met Sen.McCaskill a number of times, in fact her 2006 campaign was the first campaign ever that I remember in detail. I’ve followed her political career closely.  At times I’ve been inspired, and at times I’ve been disheartened. McCaskill brands herself a moderate, and she votes like one, but I’ve supported her because I understand the importance of the Senate. I’ve knocked on hundreds of doors, spent hours talking to voters, and donated what I could to help her campaign. I like Claire: I find her to be an amazing story teller and approachable person who reminds me of an older style of retail politics. However, if Claire McCaskill votes for Brett Kavanaugh I almost certainly won’t be voting for Claire McCaskill. There’s no circumstance where I’d vote for Josh Hawley, noted Trump sycophant and crusader against women’s progress. Yet, if McCaskill votes to confirm Kavanaugh as a member of the Supreme Court, I might be forced to spoil my ballot for US Senate.

The St.Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Board recently published an article arguing that McCaskill should vote for Brett Kavanaugh because “sometimes you look over the battlefield, accept that victory is beyond your grasp, and prepare to fight another day.” There is an implication that because McCaskill likely won’t be the deciding vote, she should vote for Kavanaugh purely on some contrived notion that it helps her survive politically. There’s not a whole lot to suggest that voting for Kavanaugh has any political upside. We know this because pollsters have asked Missouri voters. This Fox News poll (say what you will about their newsroom, but their polling is one of the gold standards according to Nate Silver) shows that among likely voters, there would be no movement no matter how McCaskill votes on Kavanaugh. If she were to vote against confirmation, 26% of voters would be more likely to support her, 26% would be less likely to support her, and it would make no difference to 39% of voters. So let’s forget about this idea that voting for Kavanaugh makes McCaskill appealing to more voters, because at this point that’s just factually untrue.

What’s more important in my view, even if there was some political upside to voting for Kavanaugh, she still shouldn’t do it. McCaskill supporters (myself included) have prided ourselves on supporting someone who has a record of promoting women’s reproductive freedoms, voting rights, expanded access to healthcare, unions, and a host of other very important issues. Voting for Brett Kavanaugh literally would negate all of the work we’ve done on those issues. Kavanaugh’s judicial opinions, his work in the Bush White House, his appearance on the Federalist Society list, and the stated goals of President Trump in picking appointees should immediately disqualify him from McCaskill’s consideration. The pantomiming and damned kabuki theater have gone on far too long. There is no “living to fight another day,” if McCaskill is willing to vote for someone who is so antithetical to everything she claims to believe, then the fight is already over. Progressives have been willing to compromise their deeply held beliefs for McCaskill under the unspoken agreement that when the time came for the big things, like the Supreme Court,she would stand with us. When she voted to extend the PATRIOT ACT in 2011, we came out in full force to return her to the Senate in 2012. When she voted for the Keystone Pipeline in 2014 after the party had already been decimated in the midterms, we were there. When she voted for a $350 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 2017, we were still there. Now she has to be there for us.

I’ve heard the argument from good, well meaning friends of mine that not voting for McCaskill is essentially voting for Hawley. If McCaskill would vote like Hawley on the Supreme Court, then I’m put in the awkward position of trying to explain to not just voters but myself how they’re different. It doesn’t matter how many times McCaskill votes to protect Obamacare and reproductive choice or how many times Hawley would try to gut those things. Because if McCaskill votes for Kavanaugh, she has given the Court her approval to gut those things, and we end up with policy outcomes that look like Hawley won anyway. Again, McCaskill won’t be the deciding vote on the confirmation in all likelihood, but that’s not the point. If a bill arrived on the Senate floor declaring the entire state of Missouri be used as a landfill for medical and nuclear waste, even if it got 99 votes, I’d expect McCaskill to still vote no. The point is, when these watershed moments happen where you’re meant to pick between principle and politics, you pick principle. You do the right thing, and you stand confident in your convictions. This song and dance, the “will she or won’t she,” is ridiculous.McCaskill ought stop trying to impress people who will never vote for her and remember who sent her to Washington in the first place.

Not only that, but remember why she wanted to go to Washington, which as I remember was to “stand up to anyone or anything to fight for Missouri’s families”. That’s what she said in her 2006 victory speech, and I took her at her word. McCaskill might see this vote as “damned if I do, damned if I don’t”, but that’s not true. It’s time for her to stand up to Mitch McConnell and the dark money donors who will try to make her a boogeyman. There are a lot of activists who feel the same way I do, and we’re pretty much in agreement about our concerns.  I want to support McCaskill, I’m a Democrat and I believe the only way to move this country forward is by electing more democrats who are sympathetic to a progressive agenda. McCaskill doesn’t need to become a progressive firebrand, I’m not asking for her to abandon her independent identity, I’m not asking her to start going to work for Chuck Schumer…but I am asking her to vote no. Because if she doesn’t vote no, then I can’t in good conscience vote for her.

The post McCaskill Needs to Vote Against Kavanaugh appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On a noisy Thursday morning, members of the Occasional Planet team met with Robert Hazel. Hazel is running for Representative in Missouri’s 2nd Congressional district, and he does not have high expectations for the outcome of the race. He says, “…in the unlikely event that I get the Democratic nomination, I’m going to demand a recount, because something’s terribly, terribly wrong.”

Although Hazel does not have high hopes for winning, he feels that it is important to stay in the race. He says his viewpoint as an “old fashioned, new deal Democrat” is one that needs to be heard and that he has supporters who agree. Hazel argues that the Democratic party needs to be the party for everyone who wants to be a Democrat, and that “… everyone who doesn’t like what’s going on has to vote for the Democrats no matter who they are.” By running, he feels he is promoting the idea that there is room within the party for all levels of left-leaners. “Vote blue, no matter who, all the way through,” seems to be a slogan close to his heart, especially when speaking about this race.

Hazel’s background is in the nonprofit sector, organizational management, and resource development. He touts a 40-year career in these areas. He also worked in the Peace Corps and was stationed in Korea. “… I was in the Peace Corps in Korea and volunteered to get out of doing my daily job to man a table for the Korean Lung Association… But that made me realize that volunteerism… this was something that I wanted to do.” Clearly, he still feels a pull toward public service, despite the challenges he faces in his everyday life.

Unfortunately, Hazel has stage 4 esophageal cancer. He says he is managing it well, and that he feels strong. Despite this, he argues that the current climate renders it impossible for him not to run.

“…It was the Charlatan in Chief. We elected a deep cover sleeper agent of the former Soviet Union, with a question mark, or at least their dupe or stooge, as President of the United States, and that was like, ‘That’s it. That’s it for me.’ I’ve long since been wary or convinced that we have reached the end of the road with what conservatism as a political philosophy can do for us in any kind of positive manner.”

He has been disappointed by every president to come out of his generation, and is ready for some positive change.

On the issues, Hazel is progressive. Two of the issues he puts at the top of the docket are Medicare-for-All and abortion. He also mentioned the need for a massive infrastructure overhaul.

 “It’s certain basic services. That idea, that everyone gets certain basic services, and if you want more than that, you have to pay for it. If you can’t pay for it, maybe somebody will help you with that or otherwise, it’s too bad.”

Hazel calls himself a “recovering Methodist.” He says that the state should not meddle in the affairs of women.

“…‘I’m not in favor of abortion. I don’t think anyone’s in favor of abortion, but somebody has to decide, and I don’t think that’s the state’s responsibility.’ It’s interesting, Republicans want to have freedom except for when it comes to that. Somebody has to decide, and it oughtn’t be me.”

He feels that time and time again the GOP has let down the average person with their votes against healthcare, and votes to restrict abortion

Hazel is also fed up about taxes.

“First of all, clean up all the crap that’s going on about our tax system…My wife is in sales. She can now write off an awful lot of things… But I think we need to have some sort of system to where, no, you can’t write off the amount, you can only write off up to a certain amount.”

He also feels that there should be a “citizen’s tithe” which would be similar to a flat tax based on adjusted gross income where there are no deductions, but subsidies exist.

Overall, Hazel is a solid candidate. He has qualifications and a love of public service. Truly, he seems like a man with nothing to lose by running. He has no obligations to any PACs or establishment organizations and is not tied down by anyone. He has no connections to any big money and has not even had to file with the FEC. If you want a candidate who is unwavering in his beliefs, committed to service, and listens to his constituents, Robert Hazel is your man.

The post Robert Hazel: New Deal Democrat appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Once again, I have allowed myself to be interviewed for a political poll—on Right to Work: a very pushy push poll, to say the least. The polling company is American Viewpoint.  The client list posted on the company’s website includes many right-wing Congressional Republicans, corporate lobbies, and other conservative organizations. So, I wasn’t surprised to learn that the topic of this evening’s lengthy interrogation was the Right To Work [for less, of course] ballot initiative that Missourians will vote on in the state primary on  August 7.

I felt bad for the young woman tasked with getting people to stay on the line for the nearly 30 minutes it takes to get through all of the questions.  I hope she isn’t getting paid per completed survey, because I have a hard time imagining  that a lot of people  would be willing to get all the way through this tedious, repetitive exercise.

Here’s how this poll went: [As usual, I scrambled for pen and paper, and took rushed notes.]

First, the preliminaries: I’m not active in a current campaign. I’m absolutely certain that I’m going to vote in the August primary–not just somewhat certain. I’ll vote in the Democratic primary–not probably, but definitely. On an enthusiasm scale of 1 to 10 for voting in the August 7 primary, I’m a 9 [very enthusiastic]. I strongly–not somewhat–believe that Missouri is going in the wrong direction.

On the political awareness questions: I’m aware of Donald Trump and have a very [not somewhat] unfavorable view of him; I’m aware of Hillary Clinton and have a favorable [not somewhat] view of her; I’m aware of right-wing bugaboo Nancy Pelosi [a dead giveaway, right there, that this is a poll from the right]; and I’m aware of Eric Greitens and have a very unfavorable view of him. [The pollster was a day late on this one–Greitens announced his resignation as MO Governor two day ago.]

I already know, from these questions, that my opinions are not where this poll’s sponsors want them to be. I’m, essentially, a lost cause. And yet, she persisted.

Now, we get to the meat of the poll: Am I aware of the Right to Work referendum that is on the August 7 ballot? Oh, yeah. The pollster describes the referendum as [paraphrasing from my notes] “Senate Bill 19, passed by the Missouri legislature, that prohibits forced membership in labor unions, which does not apply to current union members, and which the legislature has determined has no associated costs or savings.” How do I intend to vote on this referendum?  I’m voting No.

“What is your main hesitation?” asks the pollster.  “It’s bad for workers,” I reply.

Now comes a follow-up question:  “Do you favor or oppose a law that prohibits employees from being forced to join a union?” Now we are into push-poll territory for sure. I have to think about that question, because it is a double negative. And, by the way, I have just told her–in response to the previous question–that I’m voting no. But I understand the logic behind this question: They’re trying to get beyond the blanket slogan “No on A” by stating the content of the proposal, rather than just its name. [An approach akin to asking people who hate “Obamacare” whether they’d support a law that made sure that everyone could get health insurance–to which many Obamacare opponents said, “Yes.”]

I get it. But I’m still voting no.

Now, the pollster presents a list of arguments against the referendum, and asks me how convincing each statement is: “Right to Work offers no protections for workers.” [Very convincing–not somewhat]. “Right to Work drives down wages–in Right to Work states, workers earn an average of $1,000 less per year than in non-Right-to-Work states.” [Somewhat convincing.] “Right to Work will make income inequality worse.” [I tend to believe that.] By the way, every time a rate a statement, the pollster asks me to reconfirm my answer or rating. I’m getting impatient quickly.

And now, for the push question: “Knowing what you now know, [from her statements], how would you vote on Right to Work if the election were held today?”  “No.” “Is that a definite ‘no’?”  “Yes.”

Next, the [much longer] list of arguments in favor of the referendum. I couldn’t quite keep up with this portion, but I certainly learned a lot about the pro-Right-to-Work talking points. Here’s what I was able to get into my notes:

• “Special interest union bosses who oppose Right to Work are supporting criminal immigrants taking away jobs from American workers.”
• “Special interest union bosses are dining on fine wine in expensive restaurants while middle-class workers struggle.”
• “Right to Work will create more jobs and opportunities for workers.”
• “Right to Work will give Missouri a competitive advantage over neighboring Illinois, which does not have Right to Work laws.”
• “Union dues are used as political slush funds to promote liberal candidates, like Nancy Pelosi.”
• “Right to Work will prevent jobs from moving to other states where Right to Work has already been enacted.”

Of course, I rate all of those talking points as “not at all convincing.”  So,” asks the pollster, once again re-confirming the pushiness of this push poll, “Knowing what you now know, how would you vote on Right to Work if the election were held today?”

Geez, I’ve already told you multiple times, in multiple ways, that I’m voting no. Of course, that really doesn’t matter. The poll did its job of pushing out the talking points. And I managed to waste another pollster’s time giving answers the sponsors don’t want to hear. [Of course, she managed to soak up a half-hour of my life that I’ll never get back.]

But, I’ll continue to answer these calls, because they give me an inside look into how polls actually work, and that insight helps me evaluate the meaningfulness of poll results when they are published. [Often, not very meaningful. It often depends on how the questions are phrased, as well as how the polling company jiggers its sample.]

And, I figure, if I take the call, you might not have to.

The post A very pushy push poll on Right to Work [for less] appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Missouri Governor Eric Greitens loves to show off his Navy-Seal skills for maximum political effect. You may recall that he blasted off his campaign for governor in a TV ad that featured him spouting campaign promises while posing with and then firing off an assault weapon. A second campaign ad didn’t even pretend to be about issues: He simply, gleefully, strafed a set of targets with an even bigger, military-issue machine gun.

Now, he’s done it again. On September 9, 2017, he hitched himself up in the upper reaches of JQH Stadium in Springfield, Mo., and rappelled down to the arena floor. It was a showy kickoff to—of all things—a professional bull-riding competition. He made his dramatic entrance in front of an audience of thousands, as an announcer touted Greitens’ military commendations, and as four Army National Guardsmen floated down carrying the American flag. Watch:

What an entrance into JQH, Governor @EricGreitens! Looking forward to another great night of @PBR PFI Western Invitational! pic.twitter.com/nl2Uggr4kp

— JQH Arena (@JQHArena) September 10, 2017

Need I point out the humorous possibilities, puns and ironic political commentary that this silly display inspires? He did, after all, jump into a bull-riding event. The bullshit joke opportunities are endless. [I’ll leave the actual punch-line writing to Steven Colbert, Trevor Noah and John Oliver.] I’d call it  a “rappellant” display of self-aggrandizement and military worship. And one also might see his descent as a metaphor for what is happening to the state of the State of Missouri’s well-being under his stingy, conservative-Republican regime.

Donald Trump is probably drooling with envy at the imagination and showmanship Greitens has displayed. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch article notes that, “Greitens frequently posts videos showing himself in physically challenging situations, such as working out with first responders, riding in high speed maneuvers with the State Highway Patrol, and sparring in a boxing ring with troubled youth.”

All Trump could muster, after all, was a [can I call it “pedestrian?”] Trump Tower down-escalator ride to announce his candidacy for president.

You have to wonder what’s next. Parachuting? A Houdini-like escape from a water tank? More likely, a political disappearing act, in which Greitens vanishes from Missouri when he runs for president in 2020.

The post MO Governor Greitens’ latest stunt is “Rappellant” appeared first on Occasional Planet.