An Umpire Taking Sides - Missouri

[khirkhib]

A very interesting article from the NY Times.  Open for arguement.  Clearly this guy shouldn't be calling the shots.  It has the same stink Florida did last time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/opinion/09FRI1.html
An Umpire Taking Sides

Elections should not be managed by partisan politicians. Right now, a major flaw in the American electoral system is that the top election officers in most states are men and women who are publicly rooting for the Democratic or Republican side. This year in Missouri, it's hard to imagine that voters can have great confidence in the objectivity of the secretary of state, Matt Blunt, who is active in the Bush-Cheney campaign and is himself a candidate for governor. He has insisted on staying on the job, and he has ruled on important election matters in ways that help his own campaign.

Missouri is one of the most politically divided states. Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, was elected in 2000 by roughly 21,000 votes out of nearly 2.3 million cast. Jim Talent, who is Missouri's junior senator, and a Republican, was elected in 2002 by about 22,000 votes. In this year's presidential race, a few thousand votes could determine whether Mr. Blunt becomes Missouri's next governor. And they could determine who wins Missouri's 11 electoral votes and, perhaps, the White House.

One of Missouri's biggest political battles this year has been over scheduling a referendum to ban gay marriage. Republicans wanted it on the ballot in November so it would draw conservatives to the presidential and gubernatorial elections. But Governor Holden, who is responsible for setting the date, scheduled it for August, the next time state voters would go to the polls. In a letter to the governor, Mr. Blunt challenged the decision and implied that he would insist on pushing the vote to November.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled, 6 to 1, against Mr. Blunt. The majority opinion, which was joined by two justices appointed by John Ashcroft when he was governor, held that Mr. Blunt had no right to "frustrate the governor's constitutional authority" to choose the date of the election.

Right now, Mr. Blunt is trying to stop St. Louis from holding early voting this fall. The Missouri legislature voted to join the majority of states that allow voters to cast ballots in advance of Election Day. St. Louis — where many voters were wrongly prevented from voting in 2000 because of the incompetence of election officials — announced plans for early voting, a move that would give eligible voters a better chance of making sure that their ballots were properly cast. Republicans have opposed early voting in the city, which has a large black population and votes overwhelmingly Democratic.

Mr. Blunt is trying to stop the St. Louis plan, decreeing that although the new law generally calls for early voting, it does not authorize it to occur this year. That conflicts with the interpretation of the law's bipartisan sponsors, who told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the law allows St. Louis to vote early if the city picks up the extra cost, which it has agreed to do. The state attorney general, who is likely to be asked for his views, should support St. Louis's effort to allow early voting.

There is one group, however, that Mr. Blunt is going to extraordinary lengths to help vote — and it is one that usually votes Republican. He is allowing soldiers in combat zones to vote by fax, even though election officials will be able to read the ballots as they come in. Mr. Blunt's willingness to abandon the secret ballot, one of the most important safeguards of American democracy, is troubling. It is all the more so when the voters are members of the military who are being asked to vote for or against their commander in chief.

These decisions may reflect Mr. Blunt's honest beliefs. But by ruling consistently in his own party's favor, he invites cynicism about the electoral process. Secretaries of state should recuse themselves from making decisions about elections when they are running for office, or have endorsed candidates who are. And states should overhaul their election systems to put such decisions in the hands of people who are not immersed in the political fray.

[MODU]

Welcome to Politics 101.

[minionofmidas]

Nonpartisan election supervision is an absolute necessity for the holding of free and fair elections.
It's one of those things that separate the Democracies from the Banana Republics.

[Blue Rectangle]

Why is it OK to allow early voting in St. Louis and not state-wide?

Why is it OK to bend the rules for minorities, who claim to have had trouble voting in 2000, and not for servicemen, who made the same claim?

Why is the Governor’s position OK, but not the position of the Secretary of State?

Why does the article call him "Mr. Blunt" and not "Secretary Blunt"?

And the most glaring omission:
Why did the writer conveniently forget the illegal extension of poll closings in St. Louis in 2000?

[MODU]

I don't know the author, but you do make good points.  Considering that this is a NY Times op-ed article, it doesn't surprise me that it would be a bit left-supporting.

[ilikeverin]

Why is it OK to allow early voting in St. Louis and not state-wide?

Actually, I believe it was that the Legislature passed a law that would allow early voting statewide, and St. Louis said "We'd like that," or that St. Louis asked for it, and the legislature approved it for the entire state, or that St. Louis asked for it and was the only one who wanted it, and if some other city or something wanted it they could get it.    Actually, I think it's #1, because 'the new law generally calls for early voting'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They're not bending the rules... it was passed by the legislature.  Anyway, the servicemen never made that claim... the article doesn't say that servicemen complained or even suffered.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Supreme Court of Missouri & the Missouri Constitution were on the side of the Governor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe that's not his official title... anyway, who cares?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...because that wasn't valid in this article?

[Blue Rectangle]

Why is it OK to allow early voting in St. Louis and not state-wide?

Actually, I believe it was that the Legislature passed a law that would allow early voting statewide, and St. Louis said "We'd like that," or that St. Louis asked for it, and the legislature approved it for the entire state, or that St. Louis asked for it and was the only one who wanted it, and if some other city or something wanted it they could get it.    Actually, I think it's #1, because 'the new law generally calls for early voting'.

It doesn't bother you that election laws aren't uniform across the state?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They're not bending the rules... it was passed by the legislature.  Anyway, the servicemen never made that claim... the article doesn't say that servicemen complained or even suffered.
[/quote]
Both issues certainly arose in Florida.  I'm sure some of the servicemen who complained about the overseas voting issue were from MO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Supreme Court of Missouri & the Missouri Constitution were on the side of the Governor.
[/quote]
The article and I were refering to the early voting issue, not the vote scheduling.  Clearly, the secretary's position has merit, or else this article is entirely moot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe that's not his official title... anyway, who cares?
[/quote]
Or perhaps it is a rhetorical device to discredit his position.  Secretary Blunt certainly has some constitutional powers by virtue of his office, "Mr. Blunt" sounds like a private citizen with no legal standing on the issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...because that wasn't valid in this article?
[/quote]
Then why did the author obliquely refer to it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The writer uses the problem to bolster his position, but ignores the problem's illegal solution.

Don't you think the author is a tad biased?  How about his conclusion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Governors are exempt?  Or just Democrats?

[opebo]

Suspicious voting shenanigans are the norm in St. Louis City, especially the minority wards.  Its like any other Democrat-dominated big city - astoundingly corrupt.

I remember one of my favorite moments of the 2000 election was Kit Bond pounding the podium and nearly bursting a blood vessel decrying the fraud in the City that helped defeat Ashcroft.  Good old Bond.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

In terms of "Secretary" v. "Mr.", the New York Times has a very specific "style book" about what titles they use for what positions.  

It has nothing to do with the individual holding the office...the NYT always used "Mr." unless the person is on a short list of positions (like President, Senator, or a medical doctor) that merit a different title.

[Blue Rectangle]

I've never heard of that before, but I'll concede your point.  What about my other points?  Do you think Mr. Blunt should stay out of the election issue but the governor should not?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Missouri needs to change their election laws so that if you make it to the polling place before it closes, you still get to vote. Lots of Saint Louis voters were turned away after waiting a while in line.

[??????????]

Sorry to be OT but man is she ever good looking or what?!?!?

[??????????]

Sorry to be OT but man is she ever good looking or what?!?!?

It helps that she takes after mom and not dad in the looks department.  She certainly has better hair!

The Brunette is cute too I can't remember which one is which.

[minionofmidas]

I don't know the author, but you do make good points.  Considering that this is a NY Times op-ed article, it doesn't surprise me that it would be a bit left-supporting.

Yeah well, it's not o/c an unbiased peace of reporting...that much was fairly obvious...On the main points, I notice it remains unchallenged.