advertisement

DAVID ROSMAN: Falsely identifying the voter ID bill

Monday, May 23, 2011 | 10:20 p.m. CDT; updated 9:39 p.m. CDT, Wednesday, May 25, 2011

A close friend of mine is one of the great advocates for disability rights in Columbia — perhaps all of Boone County. She recently started a discussion on Facebook concerning Missouri’s Senate Bill 3, the voter identification bill, which now sits on the governor’s desk for signature or veto.

My friend wrote that she might have to sue the state of Missouri because the bill could disenfranchise up to 300,000 Missourians. I praise her fortitude. Not many are willing to stand up for the disabled and poor.

She continued that the law says in order to get a birth certificate, citizens need to prove who they are. If your name has changed because of marriage or divorce,you must show proof in the form of a marriage certificate or divorce decree. This discriminates against women. My antenna started to vibrate.

Looking for clarification, I contacted Trevor Fox, the director of the Missouri House of Representatives’ Office of Communication; the public relations office at the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, which issues certified copies of valid birth certificates; the Secretary of State’s office; and Boone County Clerk Wendy Noren.

Even the brightest are sometimes subject to the rumor mill and the misinformation that flows in the wake of emotion. I compare the exponential growth of a rumor with the children’s game “telephone.” I might whisper in the first person’s ear, “I twisted my ankle.” That person passes on the information to the next, and the process continues. By the time the message returns to me, I am in a full-body cast because of a driving accident … in New York City. How does this happen?

The communication theories are pretty simple. First, one person in the information chain might have erroneously changed a word. The error continues and is magnified with passage of the message.

Second, people need to justify what has happened. “David is a very graceful guy. He would not have just tripped — something else must have happened.” That person might pass on the story, speculating that “David might have tripped on the steps to his carport.” After a while, “might” becomes “must,” and that becomes “fact.”  Others add their speculation to the story as it progresses. Eventually, the legend becomes that I was driving to New York City to give a talk, was broadsided by a semi and am now in a hospital in a full-body cast. I must have been broadsided because “David is a defensive driver.”

Back to SB-3. Here are the essential facts, which might be contradictory to a few of the "telephone" rumors you may have heard:

Fact: According to the DHSS website, a marriage license is not required for women or men to receive a certified copy of a birth certificate. You do need to present government-issued photo identification or have two other forms of identification stating your name and the name of the company or organization issuing the I.D., along with $15.

Fact: Nothing in SB-3 suggests requiring a marriage certificate as valid identification for the purpose of voting.

Fact: SB-3 allows voters who lack a valid photo I.D. to cast provisional ballots. If identity cannot be validated at the polling location, the voter is allowed to cast a provisional ballot but must bring some form of identification to the voting authority within three days.

Fact: To change your name on a Missouri driver’s license or identification, you do need proof of the change, e.g. your marriage license, divorce decree or court order. If I were to change my name to my grandfather’s original spelling, Roizemann, I would also have to provide proper proof for a new driver’s license.

I believe that my friend was caught up in the moment, as many of us have been and will be. We have all passed on information before verification, myself included. Most do not go into a tirade when they are shown evidence that they were mistaken. A minority do.

Is SB-3 discriminatory? I believe it is and will disenfranchise voters who are physically disabled, do not drive, do not hold a photo I.D. because of religious reasons or cannot afford to pay for an I.D. Gov. Nixon needs to veto SB-3 — the sooner, the better.

David Rosman is an award-winning editor, writer, professional speaker and college instructor in communications, ethics, business and politics. More of David’s commentaries are available at InkandVoice.com and New York Journal of Books.

Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

mark edwards May 24, 2011 | 9:53 a.m.

Mr. Rosman once again is only partially correct. Why does the Missourian allow him to write his dribble without checking the facts? SB3 does not require the use of such documents as divorce decree to vote, however, that decree could stop an individual from receiving a state issued photo id if it is lost or misplaced. Your friend is in part correct as it could make it more difficult for women that have changed their name to receive the proper identification card for voting. Just ask any divorced female that has recently gone to renew her driver’s license.

Regarding the exceptions and provisional ballots; if SB3 is enacted, Local Election Authorities (County Clerk)will be forced to evaluate an individual’s signature in order to determine their eligibility and if the ballot should be counted. Traditionally provisional ballots are less likely to be counted. Local Election Authorities are not hand writing experts and the bill does not provide for training in hand writing analyses. Not to mention that that your signature and mine have changed over the years. Some individuals can only make a mark and their mark is never consistent.

The requirement for a government issued id that includes a photograph and an expiration date in order to vote is the new bar that will discourage many and disenfranchise more. Governor Nixon should veto this bill and the courts should throw the Joint Resolution.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock May 25, 2011 | 9:14 a.m.

I am pretty sure they check your signature anyways before you get a ballot. Or at least it seems like they checked mine. I really doubt if you have a ID that has a picture they will really even scrutinize the signature. It also seems like last time I voted I signed for the ballot and then I voted. In fact I am pretty sure how it works. So once it is issued you don't have to worry about the ballot not being counted. For the people who are just divorced they should have all the paperwork in hand from the courts to correct the voting info. In fact this should be done prior to the last time to register for the election. If it happens after the last date of registration then I would think that your OLD ID would suffice to vote.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements