would like to take off the table and wish into the cornfield, it is the requirement that voters show photo identification
before they are allowed to cast a ballot.
When the U.S. Supreme Court
last year upheld a tough Indiana law that mandates government-issued ID's, cries rang out that the decision could keep minorities, poor people and other traditional Democratic supporters from voting.
Now, with the prospect of a razor-tight U.S. Senate race
looming on the political horizon between Carnahan and (most likely) Congressman Roy Blunt
, the state's top elections official has no use for a proposed state constitutional amendment
to require voters to present a state-sanctioned photo ID.
"This proposal," Carnahan said earlier this week, "would make it difficult or impossible for thousands of eligible Missourians to cast a ballot."
In fact, Carnahan's office says there are 230,000 voters -- nearly half of them residing in the Democratic strongholds of St. Louis City, St. Louis County and Kansas City
-- who might not be able to vote because they lack the proper ID.
Carnahan does acknowledge that the proposed amendment would provide "free" government-issued photo ID
, but says the underlying documents (proof of identity, proof of residency, and so on) can be expensive and difficult to obtain.
This political hot potato is nothing new. In 2006, a version of the photo ID bill was passed in the state legislature. This triggered a class-action suit and the law was overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court
two months before the 2006 election.
If there is but one issue Secretary of State