We will not know until June whether the Supreme Court will strike down the Affordable Care Act or decide instead to follow the Constitution. One thing that was completely clear from this week’s oral argument, however, is that one member of the Supreme Court is far more concerned with reciting political talking points than he is with actually upholding the law. Watch the following video compilation to see the many times Justice Scalia echoed anti-Obamacare rhetorical barbs by Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and other leading Republicans while he was supposedly being a neutral judge weighing the merits of the Affordable Care Act:
NEWS FLASH
Newspaper Slams Alabama Governor For Signing Grover Norquist’s Anti-Tax Pledge | Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley’s (R) decision to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge authored by anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist “is hardly leadership,” the Birmingham News editorial board wrote today. Alabama, the editorial notes, “ranks dead last among states in combined state and local taxes collected per person,” but Bentley has refused to consider tax increases despite shortfalls in education funding and other areas. “The only taxpayers Bentley is protecting with Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge are the wealthiest Alabamians,” the board wrote.
Politics
Kristol Says Trayvon Martin Case Has Become ‘Demagoguery’ By Those Who ‘Want To Indict The Whole Society’
On Fox News Sunday’s panel this morning, conservative pundit Bill Kristol bemoaned the national attention by activists and media being given to the Trayvon Martin case. “It is just demagoguery, I think, mostly on the side of those who want to indict the whole society for this death,” Kristol said of the “maybe very unjustified shooting of this young man.” Watch it:
The plain injustices of the case have spurred national attention. If shooter George Zimmerman had been arrested at any time up to this point (as the facts of the case suggest he should have been), that would certainly have quelled the outrage around this case.
As Juan Williams said, “The thing that I think is the point of concern is why was the decision made not to arrest Zimmerman. … The idea that someone would kill this little boy…seems outrageous and at least the arrest is necessary.”
To his credit, Kristol acknowledged that Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which played a key part in Zimmerman’s defense, is not “sensible” and deserves to be debated.
Rep. Ryan: ‘I Really Misspoke’ When I Said The Generals Were Lying
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) today walked back his previous accusation that generals were lying about their support of President Obama’s Pentagon budget. On CNN’s “State of the Union” this morning, Ryan said that he had called to apologize to Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
RYAN: I really misspoke, to be candid with you, Candy. I didn’t mean to make that kind of impression. So, I was clumsy in describing the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make — and General Dempsey and I spoke after that. I wanted to give that point to him, which is that’s not what I was attempting to say. [...]
CROWLEY: You have apologized to him?
RYAN: Yeah, I called him to tell him that.
Watch it:
On ABC’s This Week, Ryan also said he “totally misspoke,” and claimed, “My issue is I think that the president’s budget on the Pentagon is a budget-driven strategy, not a strategy-driven budget.” But even that statement is a false attack on the generals.
After ThinkProgress reported earlier last week that Ryan said he doesn’t “think the generals are giving their true advice,” Gen. Dempsey explicitly said, “My response is: I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget.”
Obama’s Recess Appointments Shift The Balance Of Power In Senate Back To The Majority
The Hill reports that, in return for a promise that President Obama will not make any recess appointments in the upcoming Senate break, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) agreed to stop obstructing several of the president’s nominees:
“As the result of a successful discussion among the minority leader, the White House and myself there will be no recess appointments during the coming adjournment,” said [Majority Leader Harry] Reid, speaking from the Senate floor.
In return, Republicans allowed passage by unanimous consent of several of President Obama’s noncontroversial nominees and allowed Reid to set up a vote on the confirmation of Stephanie Thacker to be a circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit for April 16, the day the Senate returns from its break.
It is, of course, unfortunate that Reid needs to strike a deal at all before the caucus that controls less than half the seats in the Senate will deign to allow completely noncontroversial nominees to move forward. Nevertheless, this incident proves the wisdom of Obama’s decision to make several recess appointments earlier this year despite McConnell’s objections. Prior to Obama’s actions, he and Reid had few bargaining chips they could use to prevent McConnell’s obstructionism in a Senate ruled by the filibuster. Now, Obama and Reid can use the threat of future recess appointments to ensure that the party that voters did not want to control the Senate does not have a total veto power over the president’s nominees.
Reality Check: Effective U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Much Lower Than Most Other Developed Nations
Republicans have been kvetching today about the fact that, as of Sunday, the U.S. will have the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the world following a scheduled cut in Japan’s corporate tax. “The United States is a world leader in countless ways. ‘World’s Highest Taxes’ is a title we should give up as soon as possible,” wrote Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) in a Fox News op-ed.
“This isn’t an April Fool’s Day joke; as of April 1, the United States of America will have reached the inauspicious position of having the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in a statement “I want America to be number one in many things, but having the highest corporate tax rate is definitely not one of them.”
This is constant refrain from Republicans, who then blame the supposedly high U.S. corporate tax rate for discouraging job creation. But as we’ve noted time and time again, while the U.S. has a high statutory corporate tax rate (meaning the rate on paper), U.S. corporations actually pay incredibly low taxes due to the ever-proliferating loopholes, credits, and deductions in the tax code and the use of overseas tax havens.
U.S. corporate taxes that were actually paid (the effective rate) fell to a 40 year low of 12.1 percent in fiscal year 2011, despite corporate profits rebounding to their pre-Great Recession heights. The U.S. both taxes its corporations less and raises less in revenue from corporate taxes than its foreign competitors:
Politico’s Ben White also pointed out that Japan has a value added tax, so it isn’t actually true that the U.S. will have the highest corporate tax rate on Sunday. As billionaire investor Warren Buffett has said, “it is a myth” that U.S. corporate taxes are high. “Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness,” Buffett added.
Of course, it is theoretically possible to lower the U.S. corporate income tax rate while simultaneously raising revenue to help reduce the federal deficit by closing loopholes and cracking down on tax havens. But Republicans have absolutely no interest in that.
Mega Failure: Why Lotteries Are A Bad Bet For State Budgets
The jackpot for the upcoming Mega Millions lottery drawing has grown to a whopping $640 million. This sky-high total has some state legislators hoping for a big payday via the tax bill that would come from one of their residents taking home the prize. “I’d love it if a Rhode Islander wins,” said Rep. Helio Melo, the chairman of his state House’s Finance Committee.
If a Rhode Islander were lucky enough to win, the state’s take would be more than $20 million. But the fact that state legislators are giddy at the prospect of a lottery-financed tax windfall merely shows how foolhardy it is that states depend on lottery revenue at all. As Elizabeth Winslow McAuliffe pointed out in Public Integrity, “while lotteries were initially perceived as fiscal saviors, they have not generated the anticipated revenue.” Many states earmark their lottery revenue for a specific purpose, most often education, but it turns out that that formula isn’t workable:
The educational “bonus” appears to be nonexistent. Miller and Pierce (1997) studied the short- and long-term effect of education lotteries. They found that lottery states did indeed increase per-capita spending on education during the lottery’s early years. However, after some time these states actually decreased their overall spending on education. In contrast, states without lotteries increased education spending over time. In fact, nonlottery states spend, on average, 10 percent more of their budgets on education than lottery states (Gearey 1997).
The National Gambling Impact Study Commission has found that “there is reason to doubt if earmarked lottery revenues in fact have the effect of increasing funds available for the specified purpose.” The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government also found that “new gambling operations that are intended to pay for normal increases in general state spending may add to, rather than ease, state budget imbalances.”
As Citizens for Tax Justice put it, “it becomes a case of diminishing returns as neighboring states introduce new and better lotto games. Then, states either lose business to another state or hit a ceiling for how many lotto tickets a population can buy. That is, as a revenue source, it’s a short or medium term quick fix but not a long term solution.”
And then there’s the simple fact that the lottery is, in essence, a regressive tax, with about a 38 percent tax rate (a rate usually reserved for the very richest Americans). According to the Bloomberg News “Sucker Index,” residents of Georgia are doing the most damage to their own finances through the lottery, followed by residents of Massachusetts.
Media
Fox News Contributor Thinks ‘The Blacks’ Are Making Too Big Of A Deal About Trayvon Martin
While the controversy over the killing of Trayvon Martin largely skirted partisan politics in its first month, some conservative media outlets apparently saw an opportunity in the case and have spent the latter part of the week alternately smearing Martin, defending Zimmerman, or screaming about the dangers of viewing the case through a racial lens.
The conservative Daily Caller, a purportedly reported and fact-based news outlet, published parts of Martin’s life on social media, but only “selected [items that] reinforce the argument that the victim of the fatal shooting was a menacing figure who might plausibly have been mistaken for a criminal,” the New York Times’ Robert Mackey noted. They skipped over pictures from prom night or of Martin’s friends, cherry-picking shots of Martin flipping the bird or wearing fake gold teeth.
Former Republican congressman and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called the posthumous vilification of Martin “beneath contempt” and “disgusting.” “I guess it’s because the President actually said something to comfort the parents, and I guess they just can’t handle that,” he said this morning.
Meanwhile, the Daily Caller did their best to defend Zimmerman’s account that Martin had beat him up, even when new surveillance footage cast doubt on that claim. But perhaps one shouldn’t expect better from an outlet whose top editors stood by a blatantly false report it published last year.
At the late Andrew Breitbart’s website attacked Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) for wearing a hoodie on the House floor in solidarity with Trayvon, writing a cynical story today headlined, “HOODIE-WEARING GUNMEN KILL 1, WOUND 5 IN BOBBY RUSH’S CHICAGO DISTRICT.”
On Fox News, host Sean Hannity and conservative media critic Brent Bozell, like many in the conservative echo chamber, have dwelled on the fact that the fringe New Black Panthers, who have been condemned by everyone, offered a “bounty” on Zimmerman’s head. And Hannity and Bozell found the real scandal here — that NBC News edited a 911 tape in a way that portrayed Zimmerman in a poor light.
Overall, the message seems to be, as Fox contributor Tamara Holder told Hannity: “The blacks are also making this more of a racial issue than it should be.” Watch it:
If one believes professional provocateur Ann Coulter, we may soon see black “lynch mobs” on the streets out to get “random white people.”
Current TV Fires Keith Olbermann, Replaces Him With Spitzer Immediately, Olbermann to Sue
The New York Times’ Brian Stelter breaks the news that Current TV has let go Keith Olbermann, and will replace him starting tonight with Eliot Spitzer, denying Olbermann to give a send-off or special comment to his viewers. Spitzer, like Olbermann, also had experience at MSNBC, where he appeared as a guest anchor. Olbermann had been suspended by MSNBC for violating its rules on campaign contributions, an event that soured his relationship with the network, before his departure from MSNBC opened the door to his deal with Current. He was at one point a high-profile acquisition for the network, founded by former Vice President Al Gore to provide a more progressive take on the news. But his ratings fell and his relationship with Current quickly foundered.
In an open letter to Current viewers, Gore and co-founder Joel Hyatt wrote “We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before. Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.” Olbermann had complained about technical issues on his set and squabbled with the network over his role in its coverage of the Republican primary, though he ultimately agreed to anchor those segments.
A source familiar with the decision-making process at Current said the choice to terminate Olbermann was based on what the network felt were violations of three tenets of his contract: a series of unathorized absences, a failure to promote the network, and disparagement both of Current as a network and of its executives individually. The source said that Olbermann missed 19 of his 41 working days in the months of January and February, and that Olbermann was told that if he took a vacation day he had requested for the night of March 5, it would be considered a breach of his contract. Olbermann took the day off, and former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm ran a two-hour edition of her show, the War Room, in his place. The charges that he disparaged the network likely stem from the disputes over election coverage, when Olbermann said in a public statement: ““I was not given a legitimate opportunity to host under acceptable conditions. They know it and we know it. Telling half the story is wrong.”
In a series of Tweets after that letter was released, Olbermann sharply criticized Current’s leadership and said that he would sue the network, writing:
I’d like to apologize to my viewers and my staff for the failure of Current TV. Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I’ve been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract.
It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently. To understand Mr. Hyatt’s “values of respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty,” I encourage you to read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee. That employee’s name was Clarence B. Cain. http://nyti.ms/HueZsa
In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out. For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it.
Olbermann’s longtime attorney Patty Glaser has vowed a tough fight with the network after negotiations over a severance payment for Olbermann failed. And Current has hired a team of crisis public relations experts to help guide their response.
EC=BC: Emergency Contraception Is Birth Control, Not Abortion
Our guest blogger is Lindsay Rosenthal, special assistant for domestic policy at the Center for American Progress.
Wednesday was “Back Up Your Birth Control Day of Action!,” a day started by the National Institute for Reproductive Health’s Back Up Your Birth Control Campaign to dispel misinformation about emergency contraception (EC), also known as the “morning after pill.” The campaign is encouraging people to post pictures with the theme EC=BC, or “emergency contraception equals birth control,” on the campaign’s tumblr page, as well as distributing fact sheets about EC and coupons for a 5 dollar discount on emergency contraceptives
The need for an educational campaign on EC stems in part from the confusion created by the anti-choice movement’s strategy of intentionally mischaracterizing EC, and increasingly all forms of hormonal birth control, as abortion. The morning after pill is often mistaken for the actual “abortion pill,” also known as RU486, which does terminate a pregnancy within the first trimester by inducing a biological process similar to a natural miscarriage.
To set the record straight: EC works just like any other form of hormonal pregnancy prevention— by stopping a woman from becoming pregnant before fertilization. New evidence shows that not only does EC not interrupt an established pregnancy, it also does not prevent implantation. This is an important distinction because while the medical community defines pregnancy as beginning with the implantation of a fertilized egg, many religious opponents of reproductive rights have tried to redefine pregnancy as beginning with the fertilization of an egg. Thus, according to their definition, any drug or device that interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg would constitute an abortifacient. However, because EC does not prevent implantation, it does not cause abortion, even by their own definition.
Just this week, we have again seen the anti-choice movement try to conflate contraception and abortion. Throughout the Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), anti-choice activists have been standing on the steps of the courthouse with the word “Life” taped across their mouth, presumably to protest the fact that the ACA guarantees women no-cost coverage of all FDA-approved methods of contraception, reflecting their belief— however un-scientific — that EC and even contraception more generally count as abortion.
Until the ACA is fully implemented, the cost of birth control will remain a significant barrier to women who need access to contraception. As a result of the high price of birth control, most young women report using their method inconsistently because they can’t afford to use their contraceptive method on a regular basis. EC is a crucial fallback method for these women, in addition to those who experience a method failure, who are victims of sexual assault, or who have had unprotected sex for some other reason. But because of all the misinformation about EC, it is likely that many women do not know that it provides them with another option for preventing pregnancy and eliminating the need for abortion.
The Back Up Your Birth Control Campaign is giving women accurate information about their contraceptive options. It is helping to get the crucial message out to the American public that EC is a pregnancy prevention, not abortion, and that it’s an essential part of women’s medical care.
Trayvon Martin’s Death Leads To Closer Examinations Of Other Shootings Nationwide
The story of Trayvon Martin’s death has gripped the nation’s attention for much of the last two weeks. While questions abound in Sanford, Florida as details slowly trickle out, Trayvon’s death has also prompted closer examinations of other, similar shootings around the country.
In Pasadena, California 19-year-old Kendrec McDade was shot and killed by police after they responded to a 911 caller who said he had been robbed at gunpoint by McDade and another young black man. According to police, McDade was seen reaching towards his waistline when officers opened fire from a close distance. He died after being transported to a local hospital, and no gun or weapon of any kind was found at the scene or on his person.
Pasadena police arrested Oscar Carillo, the man who called 911, and charged him with manslaughter for allegedly lying to police about the perpetrators having a gun. Local activists are now calling for an investigation by the Department of Justice, raising concerns about the legal regime that is giving rise to “shoot-to-kill” incidents:
Local black leaders said the event highlights the need for reforms in the Pasadena Police Department, and have called for the Department of Justice to investigate.
“With African-American teens, the perception is that they are all gangbangers, or they are all packing,” said Joe Brown, president of the Pasadena chapter of the N.A.A.C.P. “It does increase the instances of shoot-to-kill with law enforcement, and Pasadena is no exception.”
In Wisconsin, a second story has local leaders drawing comparisons with Trayvon as well. Bo Morrison, a 20-year-old black man, was shot and killed by a homeowner after he ended up on the homeowner’s porch while fleeing a police break-up of a garage party next door. The shooter, Adam Kind, was not arrested thanks to Wisconsin’s newly expanded “Castle Doctrine” laws, which, much like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws, protect citizens who use deadly force if they feel threatened. Morrison, like McDade and Trayvon Martin, was unarmed when he was killed.
In each case, local leaders have begun campaigns to demand justice and changes in the legal system. In Pasadena, a group of civil rights leaders are demanding a meeting with Pasadena Police Chief Phillip Sanchez to discuss the exact details of the shooting, and in Wisconsin, over 150 people rallied in nearby West Bend demanding the state’s Castle Doctrine law be repealed. And this week, demonstrators in D.C. protested these so-called “kill at will” laws.
NEWS FLASH
Mitt Romney Secretly Gave Race-Wedging NOM $10,000 In 2008 |
Records show that Mitt Romney secretly funneled $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in 2008 through the Alabama chapter of his Free and Strong America PAC. Alabama’s lax financial disclosure laws helped keep the donation hidden until a NOM whistle-blower shared it with the Human Rights Campaign. The donation was made just weeks before the vote on Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California. Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom, infamous for his “Etch A Sketch” description of the general election, claimed a contribution to the Prop 8 campaign, but given it was never disclosed, this may constitute a violation of California disclosure laws. In its confidential memos from 2009 released this week, NOM admitted that “most of the world may never know the crucial role that NOM played in the Prop 8 campaign.” Openly gay Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger is calling on Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich — all of whom have signed NOM’s presidential pledge — to disavow the anti-gay group for its strategy to drive a “wedge” between gays and blacks.
Rep. Joe Walsh Says Of Opponent Tammy Duckworth: ‘Female, Wounded Veteran … Ehhh’
In an interview with Politico yesterday, Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) downplayed his opponent Tammy Duckworth’s military service and injury.
Duckworth, who served in Iraq and then at the VA, lost both legs and part of her arm in combat. Walsh’s response? Ehhh:
“I have so much respect for what she did in the fact that she sacrificed her body for this country,” said Walsh, simultaneously lowering his voice as he leaned forward before pausing for dramatic effect. “Ehhh. Now let’s move on.”
“What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh,” he continued. “She is nothing more than a handpicked Washington bureaucrat. David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel just picked her up and dropped her into this district.”
Walsh has since tried to walk back his statement. “I often catch myself when I’m talking. I meant something other than how it came out,” he told Chicagomag.com, although he did not expound on what he meant. But Walsh’s insulting comment is just another instance in a long, long, long line of offensive behavior against a range of marginalized groups.
GOP Attorney General Suing Over Obamacare Supports Single-Payer: ‘I Trust The Government More’
Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell (R)
ThinkProgress spoke with Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Caldwell opposes Obamacare and the individual mandate, but for a different reason than most of his fellow litigants: it props up the private health insurance industry. “Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business,” he declared. “I trust the government more than insurance companies.” Caldwell went on to endorse the idea of a single-payer health care system, saying it’d “be a whole lot better” than Obamacare:
KEYES: You don’t think the subsidies for low-income people are going to be helpful?
CALDWELL: No, no. The worst thing you can do is give it to an insurance company. I want to make my point. All insurance companies are controlled in their particular state. If you have a hurricane come up the east coast, the first one that’s going to leave you when they gotta pay too many claims is an insurance company. Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business. I trust the government more than insurance companies. If the government wants to put forth a policy where they will pay for everything and you won’t have to go through an insurance policy, that’d be a whole lot better.
Politics
Allen West Claims Congressman In Hoodie Created Security Threat
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), moments before donning a hoodie
WEST: They’re watching us real close now. … Right now, the security folks there on the House floor are laughing about it, but initially, they did not know who it was. And they were concerned that someone had just walked off the street, or you know, wondered off a tour group. But look, this is the type of immature gimmickry we see coming from the other side that you know, does not have any place, especially on the House floor and really in the United States.
Listen here:
It seems incredibly improbable that security personnel were unable to recognize Rush, considering that he entered the House chamber wearing a suit and tie, complete with his congressional lapel pin, and was recognized by the chairman to speak on the floor. Only during his speech did he remove his jacket to reveal a hood and only then for a few moments. C-SPAN’s cameras had no problem identifying Rush, and neither did Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS), who was serving as speaker pro tem and gaveled him off the floor.
Requests for clarification from the House Sargent at Arms and Capitol Police were not returned.
Rush said he pulled his hoodie stunt to protest racial profiling, and especially because his own son was shot and killed in Chicago in 1999. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said of the incident: “I think that Bobby Rush deserves a great deal of credit for the courage he had to go to the floor in a hoodie, knowing that he would be told he was out of order.”
Dempsey Hits Ryan For Calling Military Brass ‘Liars’: ‘I Stand By My Testimony’ In Support Of Obama DOD Budget
Yesterday during a policy discussion hosted by the National Journal, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the House GOP’s supposed budget guru, said that America’s top military brass were lying about their support for President Obama’s Pentagon budget. When asked why the GOP’s budget — which passed the House yesterday — ignores the generals advice and increases military spending, Ryan replied, “We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice.”
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Martin Dempsey fired back at Ryan, the Wall Street Journal reports:
“There’s a difference between having someone say they don’t believe what you said versus … calling us, collectively, liars,” Gen. Dempsey told reporters aboard a U.S. military aircraft after a four day visit to Latin America. ”My response is: I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget.”
Dempsey — who said in February that the Pentagon’s new budget will “maintain our military’s decisive edge and help sustain America’s global leadership” — added that the budget “was a collaborative effort” among the nation’s top military officers as well as combat leaders.
Pentagon spokesman George Little also responded to Ryan’s comments yesterday. “We value Congress’s oversight role and the secretary expects honest, straightforward input from our military leadership,” he said, adding, “and he believes that’s precisely what they do on a military basis time and time and time again.”
NEWS FLASH
Judge Tosses Out Proposed Missouri Voter ID Constitutional Amendment | A judge in Missouri vacated the language of a proposed ballot measure backed by Republicans that would amend the state constitution to require voters to present ID. Cole County Circuit Court judge Judge Pat Joyce wrote that the proposed description that would appear on the ballot was “insufficient and unfair.” Joyce’s ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Eastern Missouri and a resident. The General Assembly will now have a chance to revise the language. “We are pleased that the court sent a strong statement that respects the voters of Missouri,” the Fair Elections Legal Network, a voting rights group, said in a statement. “Missourians deserve to know what they are being asked to vote on, particularly when a fundamental right, like the right to vote, is at stake.”
