A House majority, mostly Republicans, is launching a last-minute effort in the Missouri General Assembly to put voter ID on the November ballot. The body voted 89-67 for a resolution to amend the constitution to allow the legislature to impose additional voter qualifications, including a photo ID.

The constitutional amendment is necessary because the Missouri Supreme Court earlier struck down a photo ID law because it imposed an illegal interference with the right to vote, called an "undue burden" in court parlance. Now our legislature tries again after the U.S. Supreme Court said an ID law in Indiana is constitutional. Some argue the cases are different, but never mind. To overturn the Missouri court’s ruling against the Missouri law, a Missouri amendment is needed.

The "undue burden" argument is the usual debating point for a court, but for me a simpler test is enough to avoid photo ID, to wit: No evidence exists in our state of any voter fraud justifying this additional requirement. Conservatives push voter ID with the vague argument it would provide an additional protection against fraud, not an adequate reason to erect another hurdle, whether legally unduly burdensome or not. These proponents ask, "Why not?" But the more legitimate question is: "Why?"

Among our local representatives, Republicans Ed Robb and Steve Hobbs voted for the amendment. Democrats Judy Baker and Paul Quinn voted against.

McCaskill’s winning bet

Claire McCaskill, a member of the U.S. Senate and a Democratic Party "super delegate" to its presidential convention, was one of the first major politicians in the country to endorse Barack Obama. They were friends. Earlier he had come to Missouri to endorse her senatorial run. Now she is being joined by a parade of latecomers who seem bent on tipping the nomination his way. In the candidate’s eyes, hers surely is the more significant allegiance.

Several weeks ago I suggested McCaskill would be an excellent vice presidential running mate for Obama. Who better than a white female former prosecutor law-’n’-order Missouri conservative-among-Democrats who would be a killer campaigner?

When I brought this up with her shortly thereafter during a visit to Washington, she modestly laughed it off, suggesting the candidate probably would want someone else, perhaps an older white man from some big-vote state with more foreign policy experience. Well, I’m not convinced. Presidential candidates are better off to go for the right person than someone who measures up on paper. O needs the McCaskill appeal among females and independents and moderates. He’d better be darn sure someone else really would be better, and I’m betting he can’t do it. The way to get foreign policy clout is to hire a great secretary of state.

Put her out on the campaign trail and watch her smoke. She’d be a national favorite overnight. Claire for veep!

(Whisper, whisper: Too many voters will reject a youngish black man and a youngish woman on the same ticket, but doesn’t that depend on the personal appeal of the two? Will Obama & Co. take the chance? I believe it would be a stronger pairing than with some of the more experienced white guys being suggested, but who can prove it? If in the end cold, furrow-browed calculation carries the day, the same reasoning will prevail that put Dick Cheney on the ticket with George W. Bush and Claire will be helping from the sidelines.)

You will become as small as your controlling desire, as great as your dominant aspiration.

- James Allen

Advertisement

13 weeks for $13 | Sunday & Wed In your beach bag, in your car, take it with you this summer